The national debt just crossed $39 trillion—almost doubling since Trump vowed to erase it

[JonKoch]

The ARRA.

Next question. And spare me some left wing economists twisted analysis that somehow deflects what Obama did. He was the first to carry a trillion dollar deficit.

And there was more than one.

OK less than $1 trillion AND?


Jan 7, 2009 — New Congressional Budget Office figures released Wednesday predict the federal budget deficit will hit $1.2 trillion in 2009.

WOW, 13 DAYS BEFORE OBAMA WAS IN OFFICE? What could've drove that deficit?



Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits Economic Recovery Measures, Financial Rescues Have Only Temporary Impact

 

[JonKoch]

The ARRA.

Next question. And spare me some left wing economists twisted analysis that somehow deflects what Obama did. He was the first to carry a trillion dollar deficit.

And there was more than one.

NOTICE ANYTHING?

 

[mudwhistle]

OR maybe we can just get back to GOOD GOVERNMENT POLICY AND INCREASE TAXES?

Instead of gutting taxes on the richest?

Federal tax revenue has historically averaged around 17%–18% of GDP over the past 50 years, ranging from roughly 14.5% to 20%.

As of early 2026, federal revenue for fiscal year 2025 was approximately 17% of GDP. Revenue peaked near 20% in 2000 (Clinton) and hit lows of 14.6%–14.8% during the 2009–2010 recession (Obama, Thanks Dubya/GOP)


SEEE CLINTON HERE? Then Dubya? Then Obama? Then Cheeto?

CARE TO NOTE WHEN REVENUES GO UP AND WHEN THEY GO DOWN?

View attachment 1238373







CORPORATIONS



View attachment 1238371

Increasing taxes after we discovered that Democrats were ripping us off to the tune of billions of dollars?

Nope. That's just like giving a drug addict a ton of cash to further their habit.

We need to gut spending. No more new taxes.

 

[JonKoch]

The ARRA.

Next question. And spare me some left wing economists twisted analysis that somehow deflects what Obama did. He was the first to carry a trillion dollar deficit.

And there was more than one.

Dec 2007 (PRE Dubya's great recession)


The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.



...Up to now, the conventional wisdom has been that Herbert Hoover, whose policies aggravated the Great Depression, is the odds-on claimant for the mantle “worst president” when it comes to stewardship of the American economy. Once Franklin Roosevelt assumed office and reversed Hoover’s policies, the country began to recover.


The economic effects of Bush’s presidency are more insidious than those of Hoover, harder to reverse, and likely to be longer-lasting. There is no threat of America’s being displaced from its position as the world’s richest economy. But our grandchildren will still be living with, and struggling with, the economic consequences of Mr. Bush.



The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


MAYBE DUBYA ALLOWING THE US HOUSEHOLD DEBT TO DOUBLE IN THE FIRST 7 YEARS, WHILE HE GUTTED US REVENUES AS HE WENT TO 2 UNFUNDED WARS AND GAVE US A MEDICARE EXPANSION (UNFUNDED OF COURSE), WASN'T SUCH A GOOD IDEA?

 

[JonKoch]

Increasing taxes after we discovered that Democrats were ripping us off to the tune of billions of dollars?

Nope. That's just like giving a drug addict a ton of cash to further their habit.

We need to gut spending. No more new taxes.

Got it, you don't care about the debt GOP policy (mostly) created

 

[JonKoch]

Increasing taxes after we discovered that Democrats were ripping us off to the tune of billions of dollars?

Nope. That's just like giving a drug addict a ton of cash to further their habit.

We need to gut spending. No more new taxes.

Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."