Under Trump's Watch, America's National Debt Has Increased by $6.6 Trillion
We cannot afford another four years of Trump...
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
News Debt Deficit National debt Donald Trump
Amid partisan arguments over how much federal aid should be approved to help ease the financial crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic, the U.S. national debt has increased by $6.6 trillion under President Donald Trump.
When Trump took office in January 2017, the debt was at $19.9 trillion. As of July 27, according to the most recently available data, that number has grown to $26.5 trillion, Treasury Direct, a division of the Treasury Department, said.
The swelling debt is at odds with promises Trump made before he was elected president. Trump told Washington Post reporters during an April 2016 interview that he would eliminate the nation's debt, which was over $19 trillion, "over a period of eight years."
Trump added that he would cut taxes, "renegotiate trade deals and renegotiate military deals" in his first 100 days in office.
But estimates say the Trump administration will spend $936 billion on its defense budget for the 2020 fiscal year—nearly $100 billion more than the record-breaking defense budget in 2012. And Trump did cut taxes in December 2017 in hopes that the government would recoup its revenue losses in the long term by boosting economic growth, but evidence shows this is unlikely.
Newsweek contacted the White House for comment but did not hear back in time for publication.
President Donald Trump speaks as he departs the White House on July 29 for a visit to Texas. JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has predicted the national deficit will hit a record-breaking $3.7 trillion for just this federal fiscal year, but the approval of a second economic relief package could raise that amount even higher.
In its projection, the CBO cited the worldwide economic recession caused by the pandemic, which has led to a decrease in the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) and Treasury security interest rates, along with an increase in unemployment numbers.
The economic fallout from the pandemic has already cost the federal government an estimated $1.76 trillion, after Trump signed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act in late March. That legislative package has provided financial assistance to American families, the unemployed and eligible businesses.
Many CARES Act measures have already expired or are set to expire this week, adding to the pressure on federal lawmakers to pass new relief legislation.
The Democratic-controlled House approved a second package in late May, titled the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act. The $3 trillion bill contains unemployment and state aid but has faced opposition from Senate Republicans.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on Monday the Republicans' proposed relief package, the Health, Economic Assistance, Liability Protection and Schools (HEALS) Act, but the $1 trillion bill has already received significant criticism from both Republicans and Democrats.
While lawmakers across party lines generally agree that another federal package is necessary during the pandemic, there is much disagreement over how much money should be spent.
Before McConnell could officially announce the legislation, Senator Lindsey Graham suggested that half of Republican lawmakers would vote against it. Senator Ted Cruz said Monday that there was "significant resistance" within his party to adding another trillion dollars in federal spending.
"I think it's likely that you'll see a number of Republicans in opposition to this bill and expressing serious concerns," Cruz told CNN.
Democratic lawmakers, on the other hand, have dismissed the HEALS Act as a "pathetic" nonstarter, criticizing Republicans for arguing over whether to extend the extra $600 provided to unemployed Americans each week in federal aid.
"Why are you quibbling over $600 when people need that to buy food, pay their rent?" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi asked Monday during an MSNBC interview. She pointed out that this money would be reinjected into the economy.
Tags
Who is online
242 visitors
We cannot afford another four years of Trumpism!
Pelosi's proposed pandering porkulous package would make the debt even worse, if passed.
The Dems need to do their jobs and compromise on the next aid bill
there isn't one GOPer still holding elected office that knows the meaning of the word compromise
we can afford it, just like we did with 8 years of Obama, and 8 years of Bush
Throw the orange conman out on his ass.
November 3rd cannot come fast enough.
So much for "Fiscal Conservatism" from the Right. Hell, even the Tea Party bought Trumps lies.
[Deleted]
You're joking, right? The fault starts with REAGAN.
oh, man.
Blaming Reagan for today's problems is plain old silly.
Now Texan, see how you are deflecting to a totally unrelated claim? Nobody says Reagan is responsibly for today's problems, they're saying that Reagan began the policies, that others have used to put us into this position.
You really need to stop your strawman arguments, they are almost a daily occurrence.
What?
GSquared literally said:
So somebody is saying Reagan is responsible.
Yeah, his premise was so fucking ridiculous I couldn't trust myself to reply without saying how I really feel!
You did well, though!
LMAO!
Look again. It started with Reagan policies, but it is others that ran with those failed policies to today.
I looked again. The words are still there. "FAULT starts with Reagan." I don't even get why you are arguing this. You aren't the one who said it. Why don't you let the writer of those words speak for themselves?
You want to talk about policies, but the word policy isn't even mentioned. For all you know, GSquared thinks it was Reagan's folksy manner and movie star good looks that were the problem.
So you're saying the policies were good policies? Or that they were bad policies, but Reagan is blameless even though they're his policies? Only the ones who followed them are blameworthy? How would that work?
LOL!
Have you ever wondered, when they bring Reagan up, why Democratic Presidents and Democratic-majority Congresses haven't changed those "Reagan policies" they find so distasteful?
You aren't looking, or you are ignoring the sentence. "FAULT starts with Reagan." Starts STARTS
The policies STARTED by Reagan have been continued and used by others putting us in this position.
So you also think Reagan is responsible.
The fix is in for Trump and his cronies.
Yes he should have stuck with the government shutdowns and not signed the last three gigantic Covid spending bills that amounted to three trillion in debt. I also think he should have vetoed the farm bill.
It should be obvious that Congress, regardless of party, has long since abandoned fiscal conservatism. These despicable career politicians are nothing close to the concept of statespersons. They think of their own local, short-term advantages and engage in sloppy, irresponsible legislation.
It is easy to put forth wasteful, inefficient legislation. It is difficult to effectively manage fiscal resources. The rising national debt is a report card of failure on Congress (for decades now).
We can grant a little leeway noting that COVID-19 spiked the national debt for Trump just as the attempts to recover from the great recession spiked the national debt for Obama. Trouble is, Congress never attempts to recover. The debt keeps rising in perpetuity and now these irresponsible leaders in Congress seem to think that absurd national debt is normal and acceptable.
[ I am focusing on Congress since they hold the purse strings. The executive branch can only recommend and veto so it is not the first in the line of sight. ]
I have grown to hold politicians in contempt. Unfortunately we toggle back and forth between the parties as if switching leadership is going to actually make a difference in the BIG picture. Demonstrably, it does not. The national debt keeps rising and deficit spending is considered perfectly okay.
An absolutely correct attitude. What you're overlooking is that your positions regarding Trump and the Congress all favor the professional politicians in the Congress, and are anti Trump WHO IS NOT A POLITICIAN. The fact that he's not is why the politicians and the bureaucrats hate him so much and why we voted for him; and why we'll keep voting for him. Personally, I don't even like the son of a bitch but, overriding all of that personal stuff is the fact that HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN.
What positions of mine are you referring to? How do these unspecified positions favor professional politicians?
Yes, Trump was not a professional politician (technically he is now). Noted. But you made vague statements about my personal positions and I would like you to be clear about these positions and back up your allegation.
Don't forget the deficit .
Seems to be a pattern there.
Bush, in 8 years managed to claw us out of the depths of a 236 billion Surplus to about a 456 billion deficit .
Obama, even with the 2009 stimulus, managed to bring us back down to below Bush level deficits by 2015.
Trump has managed a 100 billion dollar increase his first year and an additional 200 billion dollar increase the next followed by an additional 100 billion proposed for the 2020 budget. So from 665 to 1,083 billion.
This does NOT include the Covid stimulus.
I'll give that a pass since it is bi-partisan relief similar to the 2009 bail outs.
You may believe that a Republican president, House and Senate will help lower the deficit.
Starting with Reagan in 1981 to the present - the data does not support that belief.
I blame Congress before the PotUS. I never liked the wide-spread tagging of deficit spending and borrowing to the PotUS while giving Congress a pass. It is Congress that we should first look to with the PotUS second.
I'm not sure if this seed is the appropriate one for the discussion and have no desire to hijack Jbb's.
It would, in my opinion, be worth while to discuss debt and deficits. I'll put forward the position that "debt" itself is not a problem - the reason for or benefactor of the debt is - and the financial and/or societal return for the debt is important. Political personalities don't have to be part of the discussion, but long held party positions would have to be included.
The deficit then becomes important since "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch".
I would like to read an article that details this view.
I'll scrounge around and see what I can find.
That would be great. Others have made comments along this line too (for years) but I have not found anything that puts my mind at ease.
I think it has been a very long time (if ever) since either party had an actual position on debts and deficit that they actually held to. That is, they may claim certain principles, but they don't follow them.
What actually happens is that they spend money on constituencies that they think will help them get reelected, and cut on those that don't generally support them. They only cry about the deficit when the other party is spending the money.
Hmm , under Trump the deficit has gone up about 6 trillion dollars in hi hi first term. Under Obama it went up almost 12 trillion dollars and he didn't have a nation wide pandemic, a bunch of anti-american rioters destroying cities across the country and calling for the destruction of the country, nor did he have the opposition party doing all it could to keep any and all crisis going to make the administration look bad.
Given all the adversity the Trump has had to endure, I think he has done pretty good!
I would be interested in the source of your deficit numbers.
The deficit did immediately increase 1 trillion in response to the "Great Recession" with the bipartisan agreement to bail out the financial industry in 2009. After that, you will note a pretty steady trend down to about 442 billion in 2015.
With Trump you notice the opposite. With no pandemic or crisis, under Trump the deficit steadily increased to over 1 trillion in just 3 years. Now with Trump's bumbling response to the Covid crisis - the sky's the limit.
The Democrats currently want something like 3 times the pandemic aid that Trump wants. And Trump is the big spender? Seriously?
God forbid the democrats want the federal government to step in in a time of crisis! trillion $ deficts didn't matter 2 years ago, why should they now?
I'm not saying the spending is right or wrong. I'm just thinking it's unfair and hypocritical to criticize a guy who is spending less than his critics would spend.
Who cares, he isn't a Democrat. It is a well known fact that the GOP goes on retarded spending sprees and the Democrats have to clean them up and get hated for it. At least 1 party is somewhat responsible, can you imagine the GOP in charge of everything?! (oh yeah, $1trillion deficits for absolutely no reason, but you know, the national debt and shit).
Have you ever noticed that when out of office the gop ridicules modern economics and especially Keynesians yet when they have power they are like Keynesians on meth? There are damn good reasons Maynard Keynes is the Father of Modern Economics and Milton Friedman is NOT!
Adam Smith is the father of modern economics.
Can America declare bankruptcy? Or sell some assets - like sell Alaska to Canada.
Why sell something when we can just print money?
Because of this.
"n 1914, the exchange rate of the German mark to the American dollar was about 4.2 to one. Nine years later, it was 4.2 trillion to one."
Yeah, Universal Basic Income can do that. Haven't Democrats been boasting about how much public money they've spent?
You know, defunding the military (or police) won't cover the blank checks that have been issued.
So elect the party that is holding out for borrowing another 3 trillion! as stimulus part 4?
The deficit is driven by benefit programs and interest. Even before the borrowpalooza of 2020, debt payments were on track to exceed our military budget by 2025.
Everything besides addressing mandated spending is just nibbling at the edge of the issue. . The problem of an aging population and ever increasing interest payments drive the deficit higher, making the problem worse each successive year.