US National Debt Added Per President
- Thread starter NJPSU
- Start date
And Trump is not even halfway done. He did it in 5.5 years.
by itself this chart is worthless and Kinzinger knows it. Are these figures based on the 4 year terms or the actual payouts of the funds? And how many members of the opposite parties have voted for the fund's appropriations?
Not defending Trump...his terms have been fiscally irresponsible, but he's not alone in that.
Bwhahahahahaha. It’s all you ******* do here bro.
And Batman Bins strikes again.
I posted about this a while back.
The US debt first eclipsed a trillion in 1981 (or around that time). So, I include Jimmy Carter on this list. So, in a nutshell, we have about 50 years of US presidents driving this bus off the fiscal cliff and plunging us into what is currently $40 trillion in the red. Absolutely insane.
So, we have Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, Obama, Trump, and Biden to thank for this sh*t show. To be fair, there is a necessary distinction that needs to be made between accumulated debt vs. approved debt under a president’s watch. For example, a little over $8 trillion was added under Biden, but when it comes to actual approved legislation, the real numbers are closer to $5 trillion. So, it bears repeating that an oppositional Congress to the POTUS’s party, is generally ideal, as we discovered during 8 years of Clinton.
As far as Trump is concerned, almost $12 trillion and counting have been added to date between his two terms. However, the real number is closer to $8.4 trillion (and counting). By comparison, estimates put approved debt during 8 years of Obama at roughly $5 trillion while $9 trillion in accumulated debt occurred under his watch.
In short, while the graphic is slightly misleading, it is accurate in the sense Trump is the most egregious offender of fiscal irresponsibility, which is just going to continue to get worse. And it really puts the MIB circle jerk to all of those government jobs cut into perspective.
@baltimorened
I’m basing my data off what’s listed by the CRFB (Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget). Tax cuts in and of themselves are not an issue provided spending decreases. Unfortunately, under Trump, you get fiscally insane tax cuts for the uber rich coupled with insane spending, which is why Trump’s debt and deficit numbers are so bad.
In terms of interest, that’s where accumulated debt numbers come in, which is why it’s not necessarily fair or accurate to pin that level of fiscal irresponsibility on one president. Here’s a great example: Clinton famously left office with a budget surplus and in general was considered fiscally responsible thanks in large part to a Republican Congress. Even so, $1.5 trillion had been added to the national debt during his 8 years in office. So, that’s why this conversation is much larger than one president.
But, yeah, in addition to being a total azz clown, Trump is also a joke for fiscal responsibility. The worst of the worst. But what else would you expect from a New York douchebag who bankrupts Atlantic City casinos?
for me, it seems that finally some folks are starting to pay attention. Unfortunately, we haven't always used our debt for total American benefit and IMO, we're a little behind the 8 ball. Everyone knows that we need to get our deficits down, and in order to do that we need to both cut spending and increase taxes. I don't think most have a problem with a couple point increase in the rate for, say, anyone making over $1million a year....but cutting spending...good luck with that. Even the age old "cut defense" seems a little worn given where we are in munitions, Navy vessels, and apparent china saber rattling over Taiwan.
Our fiscal insanity might have put us in positions we don't want to be in.
Your last sentence would be better if it read “… has put us in positions…”.
Good post overall.
lol not defending Trump….but….
that’s your whole persona is “I don’t support Trump, BUT”
just own it and stop being a little b.itch
Those of us that occasionally watch Radical Right tv remember during the Biden years, Fox Opinion Network would have the running total on the national debt on the lower right side of their broadcasts.
That disappeared in January 2025.
The national debt is only important to Republicans when a Dem occupies the WH.
That disappeared in January 2025.
The national debt is only important to Republicans when a Dem occupies the WH.
Yes. Yes you’re defending Trump. The majority of your posts carry water for MAGA and Trump.
You’re blaming Clinton? Dude actually ran a balanced budget.
Usual suspects trying to explain Trump spending and why we just hit 40 trillion …
I don't think you've figured me out yet. I posted a long time ago (maybe you weren't here yet) I am a compassionate conservative. I have conservative values but I have a heart...I don't dislike social programs, and am a strong supporter of defense. I have a more diverse work/education background than probably any other posters on this board, and when I see factual inaccuracies I point them out. There are just so many more "Tom Paris" posters who make what I think are wild and inaccurate statements on here than there are bdgan or allornothings who are reasonable so my (and their) posts seem to come under more criticism.
I don't particularly like Trump, but when his policies mirror my leanings I support those policies. In areas where I don't like the policy, the I don't like the policy. I post that
You might think I support trump, but in reality, I vote and support policies, not people. I supported Biden when he proposed policies I liked...just as an example.
Where you and I differ, at least in part, is that I try to deal factually. Just as an example, your post below says "Clinton ran a balanced budget". While that's true, it's not totally accurate. (But he deserves credit, it happened on his watch) He happened to be President at the time, but if you go back and look at the facts of the situation, the budget was balanced in not small part because of the Republican Congress and their "contract for America", and the "balanced budget act of 1997". Clinton had proposals that would have negated the balancing but was denied by the Republican Congress which, at the time, was focused on reducing deficits and balancing the budget. (things have changed since then).
Now, that doesn't mean I'm anti Clinton. I actually think he was a good president ( at least when compared with those who followed) and he had a personal hand in helping my company (and me, win a multi billion$$ international contract - he was extremely pro business and his secretary of Commerce, Ron Brown would have made a great President).
If there majority of my posts carry water for MAGA and Trump, that means 1. not all of my posts do, so I couldn't be true MAGA and 2. whatever policy I support is in line with my values.
Unlike a lot of the anti trump folks on here, I don't believe that he is always wrong: and unlike a lot of the MAGA folks, I don't believe he is always right.
Off the board, you and I might really get along. I like and respect educators, and I'm really a wonderful human being
This is a fair post and I can agree with a lot of it. However, I have to point out that you almost completely discredit yourself by calling allornothing a reasonable and fair poster. That dude is literally calling people phaggots in other threads right now. Anyone using terms like that is far from reasonable.
What policies mirror yours? Stupid wars? High gas prices? Endless tariffs? Covering up pedophilia? Massive tax cuts for billionaires? Kicking millions off their healthcare? Using ICE to kill Americans? Golden ballrooms? Wrecking the reflecting pool? Belittling female reporters? Saying he will take over Canada? Endlessly threatening the press?
What about any of this do you like?
on this, I think you might be a little too optimistic on this one....maybe by the end of his 7th or 8th term....
Or the "Beautiful for Billionaires Bill" as Senator Whitehouse calls it.
Truth in advertising.
None of your posts should defend MAGA. That’s the problem you haven’t figured out.
Yeah, you included Clinton with others who never cared about the budget. It’s funny to me when Republicans point out the Republican Congress. Both sides bins does it a lot. What were they going to do, vote AGAINST a balanced budget?? They did what they were supposed to do.
well, I haven't figured out the definition of maga. Like I posted, if I like the policy, I don't care who the President, or what party, is. Same with policies I don't like.
I personally think just hating or disliking something just because of which party proposes/supports it is counterproductive.
yea but here's what you seem to forget, in order to get to vote for a balanced budget, a balanced budget has to be on the docket. You might not like it or accept it, but both parties have to work together in building the budget to get to something that can win on the floor.
You have to give credit where it's due...republican Congress and the law drove Clinton to balanced budgets...But without Clinton and Democrat support it would have never gotten there. Both deserve credit for the accomplishment
Don't accept that? Just look at the number of continuing resolutions we've had over the past years because the parties can't come to agreement even on deficit budgets.
I don't know why you are so anti Republican party....neither has done much to distinguish itself in modern years.
Jesus, Tom. Are you okay?
First of all, Clinton was included because he was president during the highlighted 50 year era. Second, I gave him credit. Last, do you understand how long and arduous of a process getting a federal budget passed is? You seriously have no idea how much Congress is involved in the process after the president’s initial budget proposal?
I suggest you look it up.
Honestly, based off what Tom wrote me, it seems he believes Clinton proposed a budget and Congress just had to rubber stamp it before returning it back to the president to sign. He really needs to look up the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
I have always given Clinton credit for being fiscally responsible—sadly something no Republican president has been in my lifetime (I am 45). But this idea that it was all Clinton with no help whatsoever from Congress is just contrary to reality and how the federal government works.
I agree, but in Tom's defense, not that he needs or wants it, most Americans, especially if they have not been involved in it really have no idea of the perturbations and back and forths that go on between not only house and Senate budget committees but also inputs from each of the authorization and appropriations committees and, as if that's not complicated enough, dealings with the white house.
But, as I posted, credit where credit is due, the balanced budgets during Clinton years were results of Clinton's efforts and the work of the house and Senate.. Those years might be the last time we've had cooperation between the parties.
The problem is that you can't separate the person and their policies. Those are lies you tell yourself to make you feel better about your decision. You might support some things like getting Europe to defend themselves and contribute to NATO, tightening up of borders, trying to even the playing field for international trade which have some benefits from a policy standpoint. However, the amount of corruption he's exhibited, disregard for communally held sacred things like the Whitehouse and its architecture, constant spreading of conspiracy theory about election fraud while destabilizing democracy, and eroding the US standing on international affairs (PM wants to take a photo with me), etc has all had a large impact on America. So yes, a man of poor character is representing the US poorly.
I don't like George Bush as a republican. However, I never once thought he was doing something for his own gain. Unfortunately he surrounded himself with too many Hawks and destabilized the Mid East, but I never though for a second he didn't believe the Iraq war was the right thing for America at the time. Instead we have our current president who is accepting planes from Qatar.
Carter added $0.3T, less than the Nixon/Ford term at $0.35T, and just over a third of what Reagan would give us in his first term $0.83T.
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated
What we are hearing on Gideon Davidson and Chris Johnson
-
02
Tiger Illustrated
DILLON HUNTER HEADED BACK TO CLEMSON
-
03
Tiger Illustrated
Behind the Scenes: 10 Things To Know From Clemson's Camp
-
04
Tiger Illustrated
Monday Clemson Football Nuggets: Jeremiah Alexander, Vizzina, Tait Reynolds & Vic Burley
-
05
Tiger Illustrated
Part 2: The most important thing we still don't know after two weeks of camp in Clemson