Gee, how did it get so high?
Barack Obama: Added $8.588 trillion, a 74 percent increase from the $11.657 trillion debt at the end of Bush’s last budget, FY 2009.
· FY 2017 - $672 billion.
· FY 2016 - $1.423 trillion.
· FY 2015 - $327 billion.
· FY 2014 - $1.086 trillion.
· FY 2013 - $672 billion.
· FY 2012 - $1.276 trillion.
· FY 2011 - $1.229 trillion.
· FY 2010 - $1.652 trillion.
I pretty much agree but wouldn't dismiss the disaster of the previous 8 years under GW Bush, starting with his 1st fiscal year 2002. Which as a percentage yields an even higher increase in the debt than Obama's. The poor guy immediately got hit with 9/11 and then he decided Saddam had to go and Iraq needed nation building. In his last 2 years and Obama's first 3 the economy went to hell in a handbasket and their stimulus packages and lack of tax revenues wrecked havoc on the numbers. I'd be greatly delighted if 2019's deficit greatly reduces from 2018's. Doesn't cost anything to hope.
I'm looking at figures from Treasury Direct (
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2018 )
Guess what, the National Debit "reached a new high" under every new administration going back probably as far as James Polk. It's just that liberals never talk about it during democrat administration. The thing of it is that we get more bang for our National Debit bucks under Trump than we ever got in the entire eight stagnant sorry years of Barry Sotoro but you can bet CNN doesn't bring up that part.
IMPORTANT--------->
I was skeptical, I really was, but a study was done by think tanks, and neither Leftists nor Conservatives have rebuked it.
1. If the economy averages 3.4% growth over 22 years, the National debt would disappear.
HOW?
2. If the Feds tied the rate of government expenditures to inflation instead of their goofy formula which INCREASES spending far beyond inflation, and
3. change the S.S. and Medicare formula slightly for future recipients. (to long to post the formula, but not bad)
In essence, their conclusion was---------------->throughout history, no matter WHAT the tax rates were, it only garnered a small range of % of intake of what the GDP was. Fooling dramatically with the tax rates to increase revenue, does NOT work. All it really does is---------->promote or stifle economic growth, and growth is paramount to getting out of this debt mess. The only other thing moving tax rates do is--------->determine which segment of society PAYS the taxes, it does NOT increase the % of GDP brought into the government coiffures, except within a very small ban, like 2%...………...which is misleading, because even if the % rises by 2%, if GDP falls, it is a net LOSS in revenue.
The problem they addressed succinctly, was NOT on the intake side, but was on the spending side. In other words-------->spending is far more of the problem, then intake. Their conclusion using historical data was very enlightening----------> you can NOT raise massive taxes by increasing rates dramatically beyond a certain point, because it stifles growth. You will get a larger % of GDP, but GDP will shrink, meaning...….you have accomplished NOTHING!
Now then---------->since we now know we are in a very narrow band of GDP that we can take in no matter what we do, we MUST address the spending!
And so...…….if that is the case, how do you control Washington politicians whos' re-election depends upon what they can give people supposedly for free?
You MUST put limits on what they can spend, and if they have a great program that they want, they need to kill programs that are LESS important to fund them. Where does it say in our constitution or any founding document, that once a program is created, it must be funded forever? IT DOES NOT!
3.4% is doable, we know this. But controlling politicians in Washington is another matter when their re-election is on the line. Should we NOT demand that if they have a great program, they find the money by killing another?
Of course, we give our politicians and out to use the credit card if we must go to war, or something terrible happens, but under MOST circumstances, they MUST stay within a budget that we set.
Not rocket science, and it is our country!
