615

Tax cuts and pandemic relief measures enacted during the Trump administration added $8.4 trillion to the national debt over the 10-year budget window, according to a study released Wednesday by a top budget watchdog group.

Discretionary spending increases from 2018 and 2019 added $2.1 trillion, Trump’s signature Tax Cuts and Jobs Act added $1.9 trillion and the 2020 bipartisan CARES Act for pandemic relief added another $1.9 trillion, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a Washington think tank, found in a study released earlier this month.

“Of the $8.4 trillion President Trump added to the debt, $3.6 trillion came from COVID relief laws and executive orders, $2.5 trillion from tax cut laws, and $2.3 trillion from spending increases, with the remaining executive orders having costs and savings that largely offset each other,” budget experts with the CRFB wrote in a summary of the report.

The only significant deficit reduction enacted by the Trump administration noted in the report was due to tariffs levied on a variety of imported goods, which are calculated to have brought in $445 billion over 10 years.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] honey_im_meat_grinding 116 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

For the record, government debt isn't bad. What is bad, is how that debt is used. If you use it to fund productivity boosting infrastructure projects, then it pays for itself. If you use it to invest in successful companies in return for shares then it pays for itself... unlike when Tesla got a $400 million gov. loan and gave nothing in return - which meant tax payers had to take the hit when Solyndra (which got money from the same scheme) bankrupted itself into the toilet, tax payers took all the risk and got shafted both when a company failed and when one succeeded.

The Norwegian government, for example, owns 30% of the domestic stock market. One of many strategies the US government should probably be looking to if they want a healthier way to invest in companies.

Using debt to back tax cuts on the other hand, like Trump did according to this article, is an awful strategy.

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 34 points 1 year ago

I’d say adding 8.4 trillion to the debt is pretty freaking awful. That’s 24% of today’s national debt.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 37 points 1 year ago

You clearly either didn't read or didn't understand the comment you're replying to.

Let me dumb it down for you some more

A government incurring debt isn't inherently bad. That's a (hypocritical) conservative talking point.

A government incurring debt to pay for tax cuts for the rich like Trump did is extremely bad and stupid.

[-] Evkob@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

A government incurring debt isn't inherently bad, but I have a hard time imagining a sustainable and effective way to rake up an 8.4 trillion debt in four years.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

In a word: infrastructure. In two words for accuracy: PUBLIC infrastructure.

[-] Evkob@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm all for massive public infrastructure spending, but I'd rather tax billionaires and corporations than incur trillions in debt.

Of course, I'd still rather be in debt for infrastructure spending than for tax cuts.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

We're in full agreement then 🙂

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Taxes don’t fund spending tho. Taxing billionaires should be about just taking money away from them.

Taxes actually have two purposes, guaranteeing money circulates and is legitimate, and removing money from the economy. That’s it basically. With the caveat that local taxes do fund spending many times, like for school budgets etc.

But all federal spending is completely decoupled from taxes. The government just “prints” the money. They actually digitally credit certain accounts with the money, but it’s the same shit.

Like if the government passes a budget of 1 billion for infrastructure, they will literally just change some numbers in “key strategic accounts”, like big banks, government agencies, ministries etc. That money doesn’t come from anywhere, it’s literally created out of thin air.

And if all that new money is absorbed by productive forces, there is 0 inflation. Only if the money is absorbed by unproductive forces that inflation happens. Like the money just going to rich people’s pockets, there will be inflation. Cause they will just buy more and more assets, without any new assets being created by the “new money”. And well, more demand for the same amount of goods is inflation.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Taxes don’t fund spending tho

What kinda nonsense claim is that?? Of COURSE they do!

Taxes (..) removing money from the economy.

More absolute nonsense. Taxes are paying your part to live in a civilized society. Public programs, which are PART of the overall economy, are an example of what taxes do.

all federal spending is completely decoupled from taxes.

Of the dozens of times you were dropped on your head as a child, how many would you say were intentional?

That money doesn’t come from anywhere, it’s literally created out of thin air.

Like 99% of all money

And if all that new money is absorbed by productive forces, there is 0 inflation. Only if the money is absorbed by unproductive forces that inflation happens

That's not how money, absorption, production or inflation works

more demand for the same amount of goods is inflation.

That's not it either. The majority of inflation is greedflation.

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Bro go read a modern macroeconomics book. What are you on? You’re literally like 200 years behind the entire fucking field. Not even the most orthodox economists would agree with you.

All I said was based on Keynesian theory and MMT. Y’know, two of the major theories, which are the most accepted around the world among economists.

And again, I did say local taxes do fund spending. But taxes definitely, 100%, don’t fund federal spending of nations who have sovereign currencies. Sure, El Salvador can’t just print money for their budget, but the US, China, Brazil, Japan etc. all can.

[-] blanketswithsmallpox@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

read a modern macroeconomics book.

Oh you poor thing lol. You think anything related to the study of economics is anything better than flailing around like a fish while applying theories on paper that never work IRL lol.

Then again, the only people I've ever seen get into economics was middle class rich folk who think any of it is true to justify their uselessly inflated salary to people who actually do the work.

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/IJSE-04-2018-0221/full/html

https://nonprofitquarterly.org/reconnecting-economics-education-with-todays-global-realities/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schools_of_economic_thought

https://www.danerwealth.com/blog/the-terrible-track-record-of-wall-street-forecasts

[-] novibe@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

I really don’t understand your point. Yes, Wall Street economists are bad at predicting the future. Marxists are the clairvoyant ones, everyone who knows anything about economics knows that. Orthodox economists make models and calculations to make rich people feel better about stealing from everyone and destroying the planet. But MMT, Keynesians and Marxists understand that you can’t model the economy, calculations only go so far.

But Wall Street and orthodox economists are usually _micro_economists. They don’t understand macroeconomics, or material reality as a whole, because they like almost all academics in function of capital are compartimentalised into their specialisations and never peek out.

But you can’t say studying economics is useless… that’s insane. That’s like saying studying society is useless. You perhaps completely misunderstand what the economy is.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

deleted by creator

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] loxo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Tax payers took no risk, taking risk implies having an option. Tax payers were forcibly handed the debt burden with no vote. American citizens are the ones who pay the price of the failures of the wealthy. American workers who keep our society functioning are robbed on a daily basis, we should have never taxed income.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

which meant tax payers had to take the hit when Solyndra (which got money from the same scheme) bankrupted itself into the toilet, tax payers took all the risk and got shafted both when a company failed and when one succeeded.

The loan program that gave money to solyndra had like a 2% default rate. For anyone concerned about climate and switching to green energy, it was a big success. Implying it was some big failure based on what appears to be a well calculated risk, is unfair and just pushing the propaganda spread by parties who don't want the government to do anything to save the environment.

[-] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Another big thing is to understand that the interest on the debt is typically lower than inflation, so deficit spending is actually cheaper than paying cash for everything.

[-] joekar1990@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

I’m confused…the government does own a bunch of stocks and makes a good return on them. Granted it’s the portfolio of individual congress members, does that not count?

[-] snekerpimp@lemmy.world 59 points 1 year ago

And half the country thinks we need four more years of this.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

Because they don't really care about the deficit.

They want to cut social programs and the deficit is their excuse.

If the deficit didn't exist, they'd create a new excuse without blinking.

It's a very important thing to remember when dealing with them:

They lie constantly and without remorse.

Like the whole "return to office". They weren't really mad about that, they just want to shrink the federal government. And return to office makes federal work less attractive.

However Biden thought they were being honest and he could score points forcing every federal agency to do a return to office for everyone....

He did that, and Republicans immediately stopped talking about. He pissed off every federal employee that isn't maga and even those maga ones just immediately forgot about the issue.

[-] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago

RTO in the DC area is as much due to pressure from various local governments to "save downtown" as it is a top-down program from the Biden administration. From everything I've seen, the local governments care way more about this than the feds do and they're getting pressure from businesses.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

top-down program from the Biden administration.

That's literally what it was...

https://www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/white-house-cabinet-in-person-work/index.html

And the vast majority of federal employees don't live in DC...

[-] Pips@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Okay, so obviously it has to come from the top officially. Unofficially, in the DC area, which is the region where I have personal knowledge of what happened, it was local pressure. The administration probably got the same nationally, hence the universal decision.

Edit: Plus, as the article says, OPM was willing to let agencies do whatever they want. The Biden administration got involved as Republicans introduced legislation to force RTO. So I guess I missed that part of it.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What local pressure?

We're talking about federal workers, GSA owns their buildings. So you can't mean property owners.

You think local restaurants missed the lunch breaks of federal workers so much that Biden caved to them and did something everyone disagrees with?

And that's better?

Hell, the vast majority of federal workers eat in their cafeterias and those are still operated by small contracts that were signed during COVID... So you can't possibly mean they're the ones pressuring Biden, return to office means agencies are looking for any excuse to cut their contracts because they can't handle the influx

I have no idea what you're trying to say, or where your "personal knowledge" is coming from.

[-] arymandias@feddit.de 44 points 1 year ago

Yes let’s focus on the national debt: famous winning issue for progressives.

Or is the goal to catch republicans on hypocrisy? I thought it was clear by now that the republican base literally doesn’t care so long as there is a hooting tooting demagogue that triggers Democrats in the White House.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 29 points 1 year ago

You're not changing anyone's mind if they are in the base. This is information for swing voters who care about the debt.

[-] arymandias@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

Focus on something that actually matters, like healthcare, cost of living, police violence, reducing the military budget so there is money for schools or infrastructure. There are many issues that actually have an effect on peoples lives, national debt is not one of them. And if you focus on national debt republicans will actually win more votes because they are the issue owner.

[-] HollandJim@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

That’s what makes fair politics hard: it all matters.

[-] OldWoodFrame@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

I agree but "you should care about something else" is not a great political message.

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 29 points 1 year ago

It's funny the party that keeps threatening to destroy the country over debt is the same party that doesn't think twice when increasing the deficit.

[-] RunningInRVA@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

He is still going on about tariffs and here he only made back $45B/year in deficit savings from it. What a dumb shit.

[-] charles@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

And at the cost of counter-tarrifs paid out of consumer pockets

[-] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

And then Biden and the 1% said hold my fucking beer.

The printing will continue regardless of which old man pretends to be in charge.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 39 points 1 year ago

Trump is literally saying he wants to be a dictator and has the right to shoot anyone he wants.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/dec/06/donald-trump-sean-hannity-dictator-day-one-response-iowa-town-hall

Biden is freeing people who were arrested for pot.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/marijuana-decriminalization-white-house-joe-biden/index.html

Stop pretending both sides are the same.

[-] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

The "both sides" arguments ignores the 100s of options that aren't Trump or Biden, but sure.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 33 points 1 year ago

Those 100s of options had three years since the last election to mount candidates. I'm a well informed voter and I can't name any of them. You can pretend that there are options besides the GOP and the Dems, but you'd only be fooling yourself.

Trump is poison and Biden is the only other option. Deal with it.

[-] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 year ago

Dems are going to be utterly blindsided because of this mindset. Enjoy the roller-coaster.. I guess.

[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

I wish I had the privilege of being rich enough to not care about medical bills, or to be able to move if my state enacts terrible laws.

Those of us who have to work daily and live in the real world know that half a loaf is a lot better than being kicked in the teeth by Trump.

Back in the day, Frederick Douglas worked for candidate who couldn't promise to free the slaves. I guess you consider him to be a sellout.

[-] Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago

The illusion of choice for you must be very fulfilling to be defending it so vehemently.

The rest of us will not vote for either Biden or Trump because that's the morally correct thing to do.

The DNC knows this, and has decided to sit on their ass (yet again), just like they did in 2016.

[-] bluetoque@lemmy.ca 24 points 1 year ago

Speaking as a non-American who is forced to deal with your shit, the morally correct thing to do is to keep that fascist asshole out of power. Hold your nose if you have to, but vote for Biden. Have some fucking perspective. You are unbelievable.

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago

There are a bunch of these accounts preaching this. They talk a lot of shit about third parties, talk a LOT of shit about the DNC (deservedly), but ignore anything about the conservatives at all.

Some of them genuinely believe it's the only path, and good for them. We need real dissent from people with real ideas. Some of them very obviously are trying to convince people not to vote Dem because it helps conservatives. It's hard to tell who is a true believer vs who is being a dick without going through their comments and I just don't have the energy for that. So it's easier to assume they're all astroturfing dicks and block them.

It's not fair of me, but life ain't fair and neither am I. If they really cared they'd post ideas instead of just "Always vote third party" while ignoring any point made by anyone.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

So it’s easier to assume they’re all astroturfing dicks and block them.

You misspelled "report them." Merely blocking them from your individual view does fuck-all to stop them from spreading their disinformation.

[-] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 8 months ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 20 points 1 year ago

Nice way to avoid all my points and keep harping on the same tired line.

Like I said, Frederick Douglas know that the morally correct thing to do was make whatever change he could, not sitting on his butt.

[-] kurwa@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

If you don't vote, then you're giving it to Trump, essentially voting for him.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Nobody's defending the illusion of choice. Quit lying.

Also, the morally correct thing to do is NOT the one that helps the fascists win.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Voting for someone other than Biden will help ensure Trump gets elected and invoke the hellscape that follows.

Nobody else will chart between Trump and Biden. Detracting from Biden helps Trump.

[-] StinkyOnions@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Get off your high horse, princess.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


Tax cuts and pandemic relief measures enacted during the Trump administration added $8.4 trillion to the national debt over the 10-year budget window, according to a study released Wednesday by a top budget watchdog group.

The only significant deficit reduction enacted by the Trump administration noted in the report was due to tariffs levied on a variety of imported goods, which are calculated to have brought  in $445 billion over 10 years.

Questions about the budgetary effects of Trump’s fiscal policies have been a point of debate during the ongoing Republican primary.

Ron DeSantis, who dropped out of the race Sunday, have criticized the former president’s willingness to add to the deficit.

While Haley remains in the race, Trump outperformed her in Tuesday’s New Hampshire primary by more than 10 percentage points and appears on track to clinch his third GOP presidential nomination.

The U.S. debt, which stands at about $34 trillion, has been a major focus for Republicans, who have pushed for steep spending cuts after taking control of the House in January 2023.


The original article contains 444 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 61%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024
615 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19490 readers
3044 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS