Trump added $8.4 trillion to the national debt: Analysis

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.

honey_im_meat_grinding,

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,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

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

Viking_Hippie,

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.

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

You clearly didn’t catch my point either.

Trump added 8.4 trillion to the debt- which is 24% of the current national debt.

While I’m not arguing that debt is necessarily bad…. that much added debt is bad.

Viking_Hippie,

I DID catch that, but you’re wrong on that one point.

Using your own example, spending even THAT much on repairing the crumbling infrastructure and building new and better PUBLIC systems would pay for itself many times over.

Of course, funding it by raising taxes on the richest people and corporations as well as closing tax avoidance loopholes would be the best way to go about it, but even if you just added it to the debt at first, it would be a great investment.

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

It’s the nation-state equivalent of putting it on a credit card. You’re not thinking about it across the life of the debt.

They’re not going to raise taxes to pay it off, and they will barely be paying more than the interest we already do have.

If we weren’t already massively in debt…and had a reasonable belief the debt would be payed off in anything resembling a reasonable time line… then you’d be right.

I’d love to be living in that fantasy land. But we haven’t since I’ve been aware enough to know what “budgeting” is.

My proverbial grandchildren of grandchildren will be paying interest on that 8.4 trillion. And every other infrastructure package and war and tax break we feel we need between now and when they die.

Viking_Hippie,

It’s the nation-state equivalent of putting it on a credit card.

No. Spending on much-needed infrastructure isn’t a zero sum expenditure. It’s an investment that invariably returns several times the money invested by helping all of society but especially those at the bottom who needs it the most and whose poverty and resulting decrease in ability to afford goods and services is hampering the economy second most of all factors (after the mega-rich hoarding the majority of all wealth and income, of course).

They’re not going to raise taxes to pay it off

There would be no need to since it would be the best and most lucrative (for the people in general rather than a few billionaires and their corporations) investment that the US government ever made.

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

The government is funded by one of two ways- collected through taxes, or through debt. The debt is specifically in the form of treasury bonds, which is a loan paid back over time. the current bond yields for 20 and 30 year bonds are 4.75%.

we’ve been living on debt for years. Decades. Most years, for longer than I’ve been alive, we’ve been functioning off debt. Some of that is unavoidable- when responding to emergencies like COVID or hurricanes or fires… it’s prudent to use that card. But only if one pays off that debt in the relatively near term.

Infrastructure spending is necessary, but it doesn’t directly increase revenue. It does support economic activity, but in the US that is almost all private companies, meaning the only “gains” to US government revenue is through … taxes.

Which means, If we’re not paying more in taxes, then you’re flat wrong about “it paying for itself.”. Oh, and by the way. total revenue has been rather flat comprred to GDP since 2015.

Further more, Interest payment on debt is not something you can take out more debt for. So the solution to sustain long-term deficits like what the US has; is to put everything else on more debt. As you increase the amount of debt (34.1 trillion at the moment), that means, for a given tax revenue, the more we will have to continue using debt.

Dumping 8.4 trillion dollars of spending that we’ve known is needed for decades is bad. It increases our debt burden for generations, the effects of which means increasingly more debt. and the longer we keep having a deficit for things that we know need to be paid… the harder it’s going to be reverse, and the fewer services the US government can provide it’s citizens.

You can make arguments and justifications all you want. The reality is, sustaining a long term deficit is bad, and if it continues, it will eventually lead to the collapse of the US.

Viking_Hippie,

it doesn’t directly increase revenue. It does support economic activity

Which in turn increases revenue

but in the US that is almost all private companies

Perhaps I wasn’t being clear enough. By PUBLIC infrastructure I meant that it would be a government project through and through. No “private-public partnership” bullshit. The government is responsible from top to bottom and as such, none of the trillions of dollars go to shareholders and other rich people skimming off the top.

It would be the biggest public works program since the New Deal, if not even bigger than the New Deal public works programs that were THE most important part of saving the economy from the havoc wrought by the rich and irresponsible back then and it can be again.

As for the rest of your comment, that’s going to be irrelevant with the enormous increase in economic activity and resulting tax revenue to bring DOWN the debt.

Also, I’m not saying not to raise taxes on those who aren’t paying their fair share. It’s possible to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. I’m just saying that even IF there’s a hypothetical scenario where raising taxes is for some reason not possible, the kind of projects I have in mind would STILL turn a profit from the initial 8.4t investment since all of it is invested right into the tax base and their ability to participate in the economy.

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

Which in turn increases revenue

Revenue has largely been flat despite an increase in GDP. explain again how an increase in economic activity- which would be reflected in GDP- increases revenue again?

From the Treasury:https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/539ec91a-afab-476c-87f0-d6f85cdf0a55.png

Viking_Hippie,

Revenue has largely been flat despite an increase in GDP

Because most of the increased income has been going to billionaires and their corporations who have been finding ever more ways to avoid paying their fair share. GDP is really bad metric for the country’s economy as a whole when the vast majority of the wealth belongs to very few.

With a colossal public works program NOT involving billionaires and their corporations, the added gains would not be lost to tax avoidance AND most of the money would be going where it’s needed the most (to the working poor and the middle class), making the economy healthier and more efficient, which in turn will itself increase productivity and tax revenue dramatically.

Evkob,
@Evkob@lemmy.ca avatar

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,

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

Evkob, (edited )
@Evkob@lemmy.ca avatar

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,

We’re in full agreement then 🙂

novibe,

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, (edited )

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.

ChunkMcHorkle, (edited )
@ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world avatar

deleted by creator

novibe, (edited )

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,

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.

www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/…/html

nonprofitquarterly.org/reconnecting-economics-edu…

en.m.wikipedia.org/…/Schools_of_economic_thought

danerwealth.com/…/the-terrible-track-record-of-wa…

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3o6Zt45jSpthw6NYHe/giphy.webp?cid=6c09b952339hfo1dcxq4zr4puwfpa6z1gqea60r4kxjy1vdg&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.webp&ct=g

novibe,

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.

joekar1990,

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?

EatATaco,

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,

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.

loxo,

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.

badbytes,

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

dangblingus,

It doesnt matter. No one makes the debt go down and no one comes looking for payment

HessiaNerd,

I mean… They do get paid, in the form of bond payments, right?

www.investopedia.com/terms/t/treasurybond.asp

wolfshadowheart,

Historically the Democrats do make the debt go down. Quite fucking significantly.

teamevil,

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.

arymandias,

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,

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,

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.

OldWoodFrame,

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

HollandJim,

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

dangblingus,

Why would anyone care about the debt?

FuglyDuck,
@FuglyDuck@lemmy.world avatar

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

RunningInRVA,

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,
@charles@lemmy.world avatar

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

Arcane_Trixster,

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,

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

snekerpimp,

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

givesomefucks,

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,

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,

top-down program from the Biden administration.

That’s literally what it was…

www.cnn.com/2023/08/04/politics/…/index.html

And the vast majority of federal employees don’t live in DC…

Pips, (edited )

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,

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.

Zuberi,
@Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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.

MedicPigBabySaver,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    jordanlund,
    @jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

    Removed under rule 3, civility, no attacking other users.

    Your modlog shows you aren’t here to engage honestly with people.

    lemmy.world/modlog?page=1&userId=730158

    30 day ban.

    Dagwood222,

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

    theguardian.com/…/donald-trump-sean-hannity-dicta…

    Biden is freeing people who were arrested for pot.

    www.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/…/index.html

    Stop pretending both sides are the same.

    Zuberi,
    @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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

    Dagwood222,

    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,
    @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

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

    Dagwood222,

    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,
    @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    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,

    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,

    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,

    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, (edited )
    @ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world avatar

    deleted by creator

    Zuberi,
    @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    Who broke Rule 4 exactly?

    grue,

    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.

    kurwa,

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

    Dagwood222,

    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.

    jordanlund,
    @jordanlund@lemmy.world avatar

    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.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • politics@lemmy.world
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • love
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • megavids
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines
    •