Why Did GOP Tax Cuts Not Work?

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (99 posts)
  1. My Esoteric profile image90
    My Esotericposted 10 months ago

    The GOP sold gullible Americans on the promise their tax give-a-way to the rich and corporate America would mostly benefit the Middle Class.  Why isn't it.

    They said all of this money staying in corporate coffers would go to investment, more jobs, and higher wages.  It has been six months now and other than a flurry of advertising gimmick bonuses to a few hundred employees nothing has happened relative to the middle class.

    On the other hand, a lot has happened for the privileged class and rich corporations, not the least of which is increased dividends and HUGE stock-buybacks such as described here.

    https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/10/invest … index.html

    What Is Wrong With This Picture?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      The only thing wrong is the implication that the GOP said all the tax refund would go to the middle class.  It didn't.

      (Do you think only Billionaires own stock?  That there are no IRA's or 401k plans in the stock market?  Or that those shares don't get dividends and don't increase in value with stock buybacks?)

      1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
        JAKE Earthshineposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        https://hubstatic.com/14118316.jpg

        This creepy looking greedy man named Steve Mnuchin who showed up at Fort Knox a while back with his weirdo elitist gold digger wife just to smell the gold bars, was given the delicious chocolate cake and workers got the left over crumbs which have already been gobbled up and then some by Trump's higher gas prices, higher health insurance premiums and lost jobs: What else could anyone expect but dangerous democracy destroying scam after scam perpetrated on the American people when a Russian Poodle takes control of the white house?:

        Workers are getting the shaft not a pay raise, but what else other than Trump University style scams did his cultees expect? As a matter of fact worker's cost of living is skyrocketing under Bozo: Even stock buy-backs are not working under Mr. Trump's and republican's corporate welfare tax cut scheme, the Dow Jones suffered the greatest point loss in history a few short months ago despite greedy CEOs buying back shares outstanding which is primarily a symbolic gesture to show investors they are doing everything within their power to artificially 'prop up' shareholder value and project the illusion of stability even in dire economic times such as these:

        Everyone knows buying back stock doesn't protect or hedge against brain dead Donald's collapsing economy which is exactly what we are witnessing: Vladimir Putin must be all smiles in celebration, drinking premium vodka in a private room at the Kremlin as he calculates his next move to undermine the USA, crush our military and economic capacity and of course annex more sovereign territory:

      2. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        There you go again, Wilderness, misquoting me.  To most thinking people "mostly benefit" does NOT equal "All" does it.

        ALSO - "privileged class " does NOT equal "Billionaires", does it.

        Mmmmmm - tell me, if you read/listen to these can you NOT THINK the GOP tax cut was ALL ABOUT THE MIDDLE CLASS

        “The entire purpose of this is to lower middle class taxes.” — House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.)

        “Primarily, and priority number one, is middle-class Americans.” — White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders

        “The theme behind this bill is to get middle-class tax relief for most people in the middle class.” — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Fox News on Tuesday

        AND how does the fact that 10% of the richest people own 84% of all stocks square with "Do I think only billionaires own stock?" implying that they don't.  Since I didn't say billionaire, obviously I don't think so, but I do think the "privileged class" does.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          "...their tax give-a-way to the rich and corporate America..."

          I don't see anything about middle class citizens getting any.  Can you highlight it here?

          "The theme behind this bill is to get middle-class tax relief for most people in the middle class.” — Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Fox News on Tuesday"

          And that's exactly what happened, isn't it?  Most of the middle class got some tax relief.

          You know, one day you just have to recognize that tax reform, whether cuts or increases, should not be designed to forever increase the disparity between what different people pay.  The idea that all tax increases have to go to the rich and all the tax cuts go to anybody except the rich, very simply, is neither "fair" (however you choose to define fair) or moral.  We ALL live here; we ALL need to be paying taxes.  And at as near equal as possible.

          1. My Esoteric profile image90
            My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            The simple fact is, it is the rich who benefit MOST from our system of government, therefore they should have to pay proportionately for that benefit - and they don't.

            The simple fact is, it is the rich, because they are rich, are able to USE our system of government to further enrich themselves beyond anything they earn from their labor. - Therefore they should have to pay proportionately for that benefit - and they don't.

            Which "taxes" are you talking about, btw?

            1. wilderness profile image97
              wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I'm sorry - I don't see the rich man getting any more protection from the military than I do.  He probably uses the roads less than I do.  He probably doesn't eat any more food inspected by the government than I do.  He doesn't gain any more than I do.

              And if, as you insinuate, he is paying politicians to increase his wealth (won't argue that point for I believe it to be true), then he is already paying for the privilege and using it as an excuse to grab more money from him is a fallacy.

              But either way, the rich are already paying a thousand times what you or I do in taxes, and there is no end to the greed of liberals that will take even more.  Somewhere it has to stop as we're very close to "killing the goose that lays the golden eggs" already; witness the cries that the rich are taking their money off shore to protect it from liberal greed.  You cannot steal ever more without the victim eventually taking steps, drastic ones, to protect themselves.

              You're idea of "proportional" is, very simply, to take every dime you can get your hands on.  And it is destructive, not productive.  It isn't enough to grab a thousand times what YOU pay; you want more.  And more and more and more, without end.

              1. My Esoteric profile image90
                My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                A thousand times?? Let's see, that means each rich person pays around $40,000.000.  I don't think so.

                You forgot to mention:

                - Get special unearned privilege from taxpayer supported TSA inspection lines reserved for premium tickets
                - Rich people get much more "justice" from our tax payer supported Justice system simply because they can afford high priced lawyers
                - Supreme Court decisions under conservative courts favor the rich much more than they do the lower classes
                - Tort laws favor the rich much more than they help everyone else, even if everyone else could afford adequate counsel.
                - Rich people, based only on their status, have much more access to tax payer supported politicians than anybody else.
                - Even in Christian churches, against Christs teachings, rich parishioners are treated better than normal parishioners.

                1. wilderness profile image97
                  wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  From the tax tables, the tax on one million of earnings is about $350,000, not $40,000.  Of course there are such things as capital gains that will lower it, but the person earning a million per year is going to pay more than $40,000.  Which is what I said.

                  So they paid for special TSA treatment.  I got the same line the last time I flew and didn't pay any extra.

                  So they paid for the high priced lawyer

                  You'll have to prove that SCOTUS decisions favor the rich - the claim is meaningless as far as I can see.  Just another unsupported claim coming out of dislike of wealthy people.

                  Again, you'll have to prove that tort laws favor the rich.  Or do you mean they pay for expensive lawyers?

                  Yes, they pay for that access in donations and other means.

                  Want to bet they aren't paying for that special church treatment (as if that means they get more benefits from the government)?

                  That's what I said, isn't it?  What extra bennies the rich get they are paying for, and outside of the confiscatory taxes you want.

                  1. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    I figured you would try to use the fact the rich can afford lawyers but that is EXACTLY the point. - The Rich Can Afford to BUY justice while YOU can't.  Justice is supposed to be blind in America, but if you got money, it is less blind for you.

    2. Sharlee01 profile image84
      Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

      ????? The tax cuts are working wonderfully...  We will have to wait a bit to see if they backfire.  I am not going to list all the economy stats, but anyone that has been following economic news should know the economy is thriving.

      1. My Esoteric profile image90
        My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        I agree, that just shows how strong an economy Obama left Trump.  But ... that is before Trump's trade war.  If the economy reacts to this trade war as they have every other trade war a president has gotten America in to, we should be in a recession sometime in 2019.

        1. wilderness profile image97
          wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          "that just shows how strong an economy Obama left Trump"

          You've got about 12 months to concoct excuses when the projected recession doesn't happen.  Better get cracking.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          It is odd you would think Obama left a good economy? The economy was flat, actually failing?  You need to really to do some real research on the economy Obama left Trump. The economy has improved due to deregulation, tax reform, and good old confidence. You are fooling yourself, sort of sad. Have a real open-eyed look at the Obama economy. It was scary, and to be kind falt.

          1. crankalicious profile image91
            crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            It's amazing to me how short memories are. Bush made the economy grow too with deregulation, until the huge recession because of... deregulation.

            We should all get our heads out of the sand. Obama's economy was good. Trump's economy is good right now.

            But comparing them and saying one is bad and one is good is just politics. Both are/were good. However, the question is why?

            The answer is simple: massive deficit spending. Both Trump and Obama. So if you want to tout Trump's economy, you better realize he's doing the same thing as Obama, just on a larger scale - massive deficit spending.

            He's jacking the national deficit from $1 to $2 trillion. Pump that much money into the economy and of course it's going to grow.

  2. MizBejabbers profile image91
    MizBejabbersposted 10 months ago

    Wasn't it Warren Buffet who said something to the effect that Trickle Down doesn't work, it all runs up?

    1. wilderness profile image97
      wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Warren Buffet might have to eat his words given what millions of retirement plans have done in the 19 months or so.

      1. crankalicious profile image91
        crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        I'm sure you can do math, right? The stock market under Trump has gone up about 30% roughly. Under Obama it doubled.

        But Obama was the worst President ever and Trump is the greatest President ever. How does that work?

        1. profile image0
          ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Because the value of leadership is way beyond secondary to what manipulators do to the stock market . You should know the basics by now cranky.
          Intellectual that you think you are .

          1. crankalicious profile image91
            crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            I'm just presenting facts. I know how confusing math can be sometimes.

            Under Trump the stock market has gone up 30%. Under Obama it went up over 100%.

            If you are using the measurement of stock market increase to evaluate the President, then Obama is better than Trump.

            But now you're saying that Obama manipulated the stock market but Trump isn't?

            1. profile image0
              ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              No , I'm saying and you should know this , the stock market goes and has gone up and down whether Trump or Obama or Bozo the clown  is the president  .

              1. crankalicious profile image91
                crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Boy, I know this is hard to comprehend, but I'm responding to a post where Trump's success is being touted based on stock market increase.

                If you are using stock market increase as your data point for evaluating a president, then Obama was the better president.

                Furthermore, the current increase is due, in large part, to stock buybacks. Companies, as a result of Trump's tax policy, are taking their excess profits, and using them to buyback their stocks, thereby raising the price.

                Both presidents used deficit spending to improve the economy.

                1. profile image0
                  ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  So your saying it took Obama eight years to attempt to accomplish what Trump is doing almost instantly ?
                  Obama lacked;
                  -Consumer confidence
                  -Corporate confidence
                  -International economic confidence
                  -Energy co. confidence

                  So wall street had a field day and as they say ;
                  "If it aint main street doing well  it's wall street"
                  I know which one real Americans care about .

                  1. crankalicious profile image91
                    crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    So, if you'll recall, when Obama became president, the economy was in full recession and the stock market was at about 9,000. So I take it you're blaming him for that? Regardless, turning an economy that's in the toilet like that doesn't occur right away.

                    As to what Trump has done "instantly", he's poured about $1 trillion into the economy and raised the national debt significantly, so it's not that big a surprise that the economy would respond positively. After all, we have more money to spend! And hey, I like the tax cuts. I have more money.

                    Just wondering, since you blame Obama for the recession he inherited, do you blame him for the government's response to Hurricane Katrina like 33% of Louisiana Republicans?

                2. My Esoteric profile image90
                  My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Your not leaving me much to say, Crankalicious, lol.

                  1. wilderness profile image97
                    wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Except that the middle class seems to have benefited after all.  Increasing stock prices have done wonders to IRA's and 401's, and if stock buy-backs resulting from a tax cut resulted in that, then the middle class benefited.  Big time.

    2. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
      JAKE Earthshineposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Mr. Trump's tenure so far has ushered in Inflated gas prices, Inflated healthcare premiums, inflated consumer goods cost, corporate welfare tax cuts that have resulted in the rich getting richer with CEO stock buybacks and no pay raises for workers, the greatest point stock market crash in history which there is no recovery in sight, constant sabotaging of our healthcare systems while Melanie does just fine in the hospital, caged children, sabotaging of our allies including our once close trade partners, insane tax hikes on consumer goods as a result of Mr. Trump's insane trade war tariffs: American Jobs moved to foreign lands and the undermining of NATO

      Whether anyone wants to believe the obvious or not, this is an agenda Vladimir Putin must be proud of:

  3. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    One would have to be a deaf mute [no offense to deaf mutes ] to believe that Trump tax cuts don't work ;  Of course given today's younger generations of almost inevitable unproductivity ?

    Well........... ?!?    If you won't produce you won't attain growth !

  4. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    If America DID suffer a short term recession in this liberal concocted  trade war ;   It would still be for the benefit of America long term .  We've had Enough ! Enough  of an economy where the worlds varied trade organizations exploit America's consumerism for only THEIR economic benefit .

  5. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    What a bunch of socialist crap .
    " The poor receive fewer and fewer resources "


    Either one is not old enough , educated enough , poor enough or life educated enough to  realize the moronity of that statement . Todays collective social  and economic safety nets are far , far more advanced than they ever have been in America .   If you weren't around in rural America in the 1950's , 60's or even into the seventies and experienced even borderline poverty AND either experienced or witnessed the acts of seeking assistance , then you have absolutely NO clue about what you're talking about . Period .

    But , It does fit well into  the liberal agenda .
    Ask more and you will receive .

    1. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      Methinks Ahorseback has no clue what he is talking about.

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Your problem lies in the first sentence of your statement .  Perhaps party illusions have dominated your sense of honesty , who knows ?

      2. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        https://hubstatic.com/14152027_f1024.jpg

        But I listen to him and to you !

  6. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    Isn't deficit spending kind of like saying ,"Tax Cut -Costs " Or what it "costs" us to cut taxes ?

    1. My Esoteric profile image90
      My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      ?

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        Well , we have to hope Trump sees the writing on the wall about deficit spending although until he cuts enough waste we won't see a reduction in deficits or debt..    I was thinking about how democrats whine about the "cost " to them  of tax cuts .

        1. My Esoteric profile image90
          My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Ahorseback, there isn't enough fraud, waste, and abuse in gov't to put a dent in the deficit, it is just not that big, relatively speaking.

          Also, the way Clinton turned a deficit into a surplus was by raising taxes on the wealthy coupled with reductions in programs and services the federal government provides (mainly on the backs of civilian defense dept jobs*) coupled with doing the things needed to keep the economy growing for the longest period in U.S. history.

          * That backfired on him.  Since our workload wasn't reduced three things things had to happen: 1) more expensive contractors were hired to do the work my fellow civil servants were doing, 2) the dumbing-down of the federal workforce RIFing experienced workers, often expert in their field, and 3) weakened the ability to provide oversight of acquisition and program management.

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Oh , I suspect that in time our national debt may be just as negotiable as  trade tariff deficits with China .    We are obviously  at a huge loss with China  with our debt but China , without US consumerism ,  might also be a willing negotiator OR the US might just  renege in the interests of  strategic economic maneuvering who knows ?

            Do Americans with huge credit card debts always pay them of in full or are negotiations a factor ? I don't know but suspect that our national debt may be as negotiable . You think ?

            1. GA Anderson profile image90
              GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

              ahorseback, it sounds like you are ignoring that the U.S. national debt is a public debt - financed by Treasury Bond and securities sold to the public.

              How would he negotiate a reduction of that debt with just China without negotiating with all bond and security holders? 

              China only holds around $2 trillion* in bonds and securities. Domestic U.S. bond and securities holders have about $3 Trillion*
              *2014 numbers.

              Do you think he can legally pick and choose who gets screwed?

              GA

              1. wilderness profile image97
                wildernessposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                Why not?  The law didn't stop Obama from picking and choosing which classes of illegal aliens would be allowed to remain...

                (Sorry, GA - just had to stick that bit of snark in!)

                1. GA Anderson profile image90
                  GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  No worries bud, there is plenty of room for snark in this discussion topic - particularly when you get the the Federal Accounts portion of the National Debt that I mentioned in my reply to ahorseback.

                  GA

  7. profile image0
    ahorsebackposted 9 months ago

    I don't fully understand  all our debt or economics  , only in that I was laid off twice in the Obama years and paid way too much for gas and heating ,  But I do know how we can eliminate our debt to China and evaporate China's trade fixing and currency manipulation ,   I do know that it will be Trump who possibly accomplishes that  and not congress .

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

      But, ahorseback, our "debt to China" is factually the amount of treasury bonds and securities China, as a government, and China, as in Chinese investors, own.

      So what is it that you know Pres. Trump could do about those treasury bonds and securities that he wouldn't have to do to all bonds and securities - to even make a claim it was legal?

      GA

      1. profile image0
        ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

        G.A. Please ,   Do us all a favor and explain where our national debt actually is ? I admit that I don't understand our debt .  It does however seem to me that there is perhaps even more to be gained by these trade tariff negotiations  than not  in terms of our nations losses and economic growth.

        1. Sharlee01 profile image84
          Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

          Horse , The largest part of the national debt. Aug 2018  was borrowed from Social security 15%. Then the next largest debt is 13% to the Federal Reserve. We have borrowed from the Military Retirement Fund, Banks, State and Government pension funds, Medicare, 3.3 % from other countries. China being the biggest loaner.  You name it, we have hit it up... And Obama ran up epic dept.  And one could say, where did it all go?  This was one reason I voted for Trump. Just can't afford any more giveaways...   The debt Obama acquired was actually astounding, should have been enough to scare anyone. However, it seems many in our society have become blind to reality when it comes to debt. And some worry about trade wars. We need cash and fair trade could equal trading practices, and add cash to our coffers. I hope Trump can start paying down debt as he has talked about. This country will suffer if Social security goes under as well as Medicare. No one wants to really wants to talk about the national debt or point a long finger at the Dems for creating the biggest part of it. Yes, fair trade could help return some of what has been borrowed, it will certainly stop up the drain...

          https://www.thebalance.com/who-owns-the … bt-3306124

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            Sharlee , Thank you for that , I agree wholeheartedly ,  Democrats and Obama's disastrous addition to debt   by the numbers alone shows all the proof I need .     I bookmarked that page .    I still say "watch out " the left is totally ignoring the power of Trumps economic wisdom .   Remember people ---Trump owes no one anything .

          2. crankalicious profile image91
            crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            You can actually smell the self-righteousness and hypocrisy coming off the computer screen!

            Please! Nobody cares about the national debt. Do your own research and see how much, relative to what they started with, the debt was raised by Reagan and George W. Bush. And now with Donald Trump. Republicans don't seem to care much and Democrats don't seem to worry about it either.

            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/under-dona … time-ever/

            Here's what we've learned as a country: spending works (not saying it's ultimately true, but that's what we've learned).

            Reagan spent. Bush spent. Obama spent. And now Trump is spending (doubling the yearly national debt by a trillion dollars). Presidents spend because it provides an economic boost that makes them look good.

            1. Sharlee01 profile image84
              Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

              "Please! Nobody cares about the national debt. Do your own research and see how much, relative to what they started with, the debt was raised by Reagan and George W. Bush. And now with Donald Trump. Republicans don't seem to care much and Democrats don't seem to worry about it either."

              "Self-righteous'? Is your statement telling? The truth is the truth, I don't feel it's self-righteous to face the truth of our national debt. I do not search out media explanations "to make it all better"...  Your resource is laughable in my opinion. The subject in regard to the national debt is based on science. It is based in mathematical stats. I see from the resource article you depend on media to explain away a very ugly situation.

              "No one cares about the national debt"? How nice of you to speak for all...  And I might add how liberal of you. You need not remind me of the ugly fact that many do not consider the national debt.  It's been very clear for many years that not many actually know anything about the national debt. And that the fact is the majority of the debt has been borrowed from our own piggy banks...  If you look at the debt you can see Obama is the king so far of creating the largest debt. And nothing much to show for the expenditure.   My comment was strictly based on fact.  Maybe you should do some research other than a news outlet...     When the peoples piggy bank is empty, we can then turn to borrow a larger percentage from other countries. , we can then collapse.  Yes, we have always been insolvent back as far as America's creation.  That should not comfort you, due to the very percentage rates of our borrowing have risen dramatically over the past 10 years. And in regards to Trump and that he will leave, that is yet to be seen... I for one hope he controls spending.

              President Obama has “the worst record of any president when it comes to putting America deeper in debt.”
              Reagan $1,873 $5,413 34%
              GHW Bush 1,484 $6,492 29%
              Clinton 1,268 $10,472 12%
              GW Bush 4,899 $14,549 34%
              Obama 8,296 $18,164 46%


              When Regan left office the debt was $5,413 he had added $1,873
              When GHW Bush  left office  the debt was $6,492 added $1,484 to debt
              When Clinton left office the debt was  Clinton $10,472 Clinton added $4,010 to debt.
              When GW Bush left office the debt was $14,549 he added $4,899
              When Obama left office  $18,164  he added $8,296.
              We have a winner...

              "Presidents spend because it provides an economic boost that makes them look good."

              This is true. However, Trump has already added over a trillion to the economy due to the repatriation of offshore money and job creation.  So far he is improving what we are worth as a country. Hopefully, he will not create the need to borrow over his tenure. If he gets better trade deals our economy will continue to do well., and the debt could actually not increase but stabilize under Trump.

              1. crankalicious profile image91
                crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                You miss my point.

                Nobody cares about the national debt because, as you have shown, every President adds to it willingly and enthusiastically, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat.

                Ask yourself why. Democrats were thrilled that Obama added to the debt because they got stuff. Republicans are thrilled that Trump is adding to the debt because they're getting stuff they want.

                Blame Obama if you want. He added more to the debt because when he arrived in office, the national debt was higher than it had ever been.

                Once again, do your research. Grasp the math. Relativity is important.

                Relative to what the debt was when they entered office, by what percentage did each of those presidents raise the debt?

                Did you read the link? Of course not. I was not using that link to explain anything away. What I'm saying is that every President has raised the debt. Trump is talking about eliminating the debt ceiling.

                What I'm saying is that, spare me any partisan self-righteousness, neither party demonstrates that they care about the national debt.

                Here's a pretty decent summary:

                https://www.debtconsolidation.com/us-debt-presidents/

                And if you're going to blame Obama, read this first:

                https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones … 63f3761917

                This is from Forbes, which leans conservative. Go, read it. Here's the opening paragraph:

                "Republicans use a sound bite that the federal debt doubled under Obama. In looking at the numbers that is close to being numerically correct but falls short of being 100%. However when you take into account the Great Recession, making W. Bush’s temporary tax cuts permanent, increased Social Security and Medicare spending as more Baby Boomers retire and become 65 years old and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars he inherited the story is quite different."

                Here is how much each president increased the debt since Reagan:

                Reagan: 184%
                Bush: 54%
                Clinton: 36%
                W. Bush: 93%
                Obama: 78%

                Hey look, science! (really, based on science? So is climate change. Don't see you too hot and bothered about that)

                Further, Obama grew the national debt at a SLOWER rate than all of the Republican presidents. I'm not trying to excuse Obama, but he had some definite challenges that were completely out of his control, such as: War in Iraq, War in Afghanistan, Medicare, Medicaid, Bush's permanent tax cuts, and Baby Boomers retiring and stressing the various systems.

                1. JAKE Earthshine profile image77
                  JAKE Earthshineposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  Another critical component to understand is that President Obama added to the debt in an effort to give all Americans healthcare, Bozo Trump is adding trillions to the debt to give rich greedy Anti-American Wall Street Elites even MORE of our money in the form of his corporate welfare tax cut scam:

                2. Sharlee01 profile image84
                  Sharlee01posted 9 months agoin reply to this

                  "Nobody cares about the national debt because, as you have shown, every President adds to it willingly and enthusiastically, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat."

                  Well, Obama's debt made many wake up and wonder where are we headed with this large of national debt with Social security is pretty much going to an end. And all the liberals can offer is more government spending, it's all going to be free...  This is the Dems platform, their main agenda. The funny thing is they can actually sell it to some?  Oh, but then when a problem pops up, try to fix it by banning straws. Yeah, that will work... I can see very clearly why they voted for Obama.. I can't see why anyone would defend his job performance?   Maybe your attitude and millions of others are not so smart?  It seems when any big problems come close to exploding is when some want to recognize it as a problem, and thy start wringing their hands pointing fingers.

                  "
                  Did you read the link? Of course not"   No, as I said I do not respect the media as a resource on something like the national debt. There are websites that supply actual stats. And do not add political bias. Just don't play that game.
                  One of Obamas biggest expenditures or should I say the taxpayer's expenditures was paying for Obamacare... Just sit back and consider how much we would have to borrow for socialized medicine? However, it does appear you don't worry about where the money is coming from?  Because after all the debt goes up with every president.  Why worry?

                  1. crankalicious profile image91
                    crankaliciousposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Whatever. You clearly don't understand and all you're doing is politicizing.

                    Wake up. I gave you math. Reagan drove up the national debt at the highest rate of any president and you want to complain it's all Democrats. It's not. It's everyone.

                  2. My Esoteric profile image90
                    My Esotericposted 9 months agoin reply to this

                    Clinton actually brought the debt down, in real terms, before Bush blew it up again.

                    BTW, why does everybody on the Right ignore the fact that about 80% of the increase in deficit (and therefore the National debt) was driven solely by the conservative recession and President Obama's successful polices to keep us out of a full blown depression and ultimately turn the worst economy since 1937 around.

        2. GA Anderson profile image90
          GA Andersonposted 9 months agoin reply to this

          I am always glad to do a favor ahorseback. Here you go:

          In rough numbers:

          About one third of our National debt is held by Federal Accounts, that is money our government has borrowed from other government trust funds, (like the Social Security Trust Fund), and entities that have surpluses. Meaning, it is money the government borrowed from, and owes to, itself.

          Approx.one-third, (it is slightly less), is held by domestic U.S. investors, State and Local governments and entities, and finally, the Federal Reserve.

          Approx. one-third is your favorite target - Foreign Investors. of which China and Japan hold the most,

          So there it is, If you really wanted an effective target to reduce, or at least slow the increase, of the national debt, I think that Federal Accounts debt would be a good target.

          Stop the politicians from plundering our own government trust funds.

          Here is a representative tidbit; As of 2014, the politicians had "borrowed" almost $3 Trillion from Social Security alone.

          GA

          1. profile image0
            ahorsebackposted 9 months agoin reply to this

            SS funds must be doing well  then , Once most Americans felt that all our SS was spent long ago  and it was now coming out of general funds .   Maybe I;m too fiscally responsible but I fail to see how so many people simply want MORE entitlements coming out of our federal funds.
            -Guaranteed Income
            -Free Healthcare
            -Free Higher education
            -Free Family leave
            -Free Day care.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)