620

Trump added $8.4 trillion to the national debt: Analysis (thehill.com)

submitted 9 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

60 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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@lemmy.blahaj.zone 112 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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 24 points 9 months 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 28 points 9 months 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 6 points 9 months 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 16 points 9 months ago

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

[-] Evkob@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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 10 points 9 months ago

We're in full agreement then 🙂

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (8 replies)

[-] loxo@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months 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 9 months 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 9 months 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 2 points 9 months 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 58 points 9 months ago

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

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 38 points 9 months 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 9 months 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.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] arymandias@feddit.de 37 points 9 months 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 28 points 9 months 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 5 points 9 months 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 6 points 9 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 9 months ago

Why would anyone care about the debt?

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Because I like having a stable country.

Do you like stability?

If we keep putting shit on debt rather than, you know, paying for it upfront, eventually the country will be drowned in debt and shit can’t be taken care of.

I also like the idea of not being cursed by my (proverbial…) grandkid’s kids

[-] teamevil@lemmy.world 28 points 9 months 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 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months 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.

[-] Arcane_Trixster@lemm.ee 25 points 9 months ago

If I remember the articles being written at the time, his tariffs hurt American farmers by causing China to buy from other countries. He then used stipends to make up the difference to them so they weren't out the money. The result is, he damaged our trade position, used taxes to cover it up, and American Farmers still love him and don't understand they were receiving the dreaded "Guvment Handouts".

[-] Facebones@reddthat.com 1 points 9 months ago

Republican voters love handouts as long as they go ONLY to the right people.

[-] charles@lemmy.world 14 points 9 months ago

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

[-] badbytes@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Luckily, we will have trillionaires soon, that can just write a personal check.

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 1 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

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

this post was submitted on 25 Jan 2024

620 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19159 readers

4523 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.
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