But didn't pay off any debt
Trump lost moving on with new year go Biden
- Thread starter Allforthewifey
- Start date
how fucking hard is it to read above......you simply ignore the facts because they are not what you want them to be....you are getting as stupid as hottobe
Especially since they don't wear masks!!!
The U.S. national debt reaches $0 for the first time
On January 8, 1835, President Andrew Jackson achieves his goal of entirely paying off the United States’ national debt. It was the only time in U.S. history
www.history.com
can't argue with stupidity....
but how about your support of treason....he gave the Kurds to Turkey...for personal gain.....he gave Syria to Russia for personal gain....he gave nukes help to the Saudis and ignored their killing of a journalist....for personal gain...….he gave a billion tons of medical supplires to china while we are in a pandemic...for personal gain....if re-elected what will he give up next...because he owes millions to different countries?....corruption for him is NOT for this country it is for profit to him....how about his letting Canada company cut up trees in one of our parks in Oregon and Washington...….it just goes on....with his under the table money
but how about your support of treason....he gave the Kurds to Turkey...for personal gain.....he gave Syria to Russia for personal gain....he gave nukes help to the Saudis and ignored their killing of a journalist....for personal gain...….he gave a billion tons of medical supplires to china while we are in a pandemic...for personal gain....if re-elected what will he give up next...because he owes millions to different countries?....corruption for him is NOT for this country it is for profit to him....how about his letting Canada company cut up trees in one of our parks in Oregon and Washington...….it just goes on....with his under the table money
The U.S. national debt reaches $0 for the first time
On January 8, 1835, President Andrew Jackson achieves his goal of entirely paying off the United States’ national debt. It was the only time in U.S. history
yes FIRST time...not hard to understand...…..but if you would remove your head from your ass and read.....
PolitiFact | Here's how the deficit performed under …
www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jul/29/tweets/republican-presidents-democ…
During his presidency, Clinton managed to zero out the deficit and end his term with a $128.2 billion surplus. " (George W.) Bush 43 took it from 0 to 1.2 trillion." This is in the ballpark. Ignoring the fact that he actually started his presidency with a surplus, Bush left office in 2009 with a federal deficit of roughly $1.41 trillion.
Keep reading only time in history
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
www.craigsteiner.us
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
www.craigsteiner.us
oh that is something we can count on to be factual....did you help author it?
he has melania….and who knows how many porn stars and ******* girls...and his *******.....
want to go into that?The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy
www.businessinsider.com
She's dumb as *******, and not fucking either one.
Anyone of you that made more than $15/hr can marry an Eastern Euro for citizenship. Except you.
The Untold Story Of How Clinton's Budget Destroyed The American Economy
first off Clinton did not destroy the economy....he was trying to get the country out of the deficit that Reagan put us in......your man Reagan has destroyed America...and with the right it just keep snowballing
How Reagan Destroyed America & The Middle Class
Reagan is directly responsible for destroying the Middle Class of America, and I am not the only one who thinks so. A number of political analysts have written on this very subject.
James Joiner on allvoices.com calls him "the destroyer of main street" and "the ******* of this nightmare we are living.
He goes on to state of the Republicans: "They call themselves the party of Ronald Reagan! That scares the hell out of me because Reagan was the ******* of the war mongering high Deficit compassionate Conservatives that gave Birth to much war present and future unless Obama can turn around the disaster they created around the world with their war mongering!" (http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...in-street-and-a-ronald-reagan-jr-i-agree-with).
Pablo Mayhew, a columnist on rawstory.com goes so far as to refer to Reagan as a criminal no better than his Republican predecessor, Richard Nixon. He relates Reagan's role in the Iran-Contra affair in which Reagan pled "forgetfulness" when pressed about it.
Mayhew concludes with these words: " as one great writer has contended, that Richard Nixon broke the heart of the American Dream, then Reagan broke its back Now.... the American Dream is clearly down for the count." (http://www.rawstory.com/exclusives/mayhew/reagan_destroyed_american_dream.htm)
And listen to what Thom Hartmann, prominent television and radio talk show host and commentator, had to say about the devastation today on our economy that was the direct result, he reports, of Reaganomics when he appeared as a guest on Dateline just prior to Obama taking office.
"when Reagan came into office we were the largest exporter of manufacturing goods and the largest importer of raw materials on the planet. And, the largest creditor--more people owed us money than anybody else in the world. Now, just 28 years later, we're the largest importer of finished goods, manufactured goods; the largest exporter of raw materials--which is kind of the definition of a third-world nation -- and we're the most in-debt of any country in the world. This is the absolute consequence of Reaganomics." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hartmann/thom-hartmann-defends-the_b_150964.html)
These graphs bear out exactly what all these people have been saying about Reagan being directly responsible for destroying America and the Middle Class. In looking at these pay particulular attention to 1981, the year Reagan took office.
Obviously, George H. Bush, Clinton, and Gorge W could have reversed this trend; instead, they, for the most part became keepers and harbingers of it.
Working people's share of the benefits from increased productivity took a sudden turn down:
This resulted in intense concentration of wealth at the top:
And ****** working people to spend down savings to get by:
Which ****** working people to go into debt: (total household debt aspercentage of GDP)
"Conservative policies transformed the United States from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation in just a few years, and it has only gotten worse since then: " So avows the author who researched the subject and collected the graphs. (http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts)
You can find all kinds of books and articles praising Reagan, but what I have presented are the cold, hard facts about what the man did to our economy with his Reaganomics. For those who would like to read more on this subject, go to:
Reagan Revolution Home To Roost: America Drowning In Debt
Reagan Revolution Home To Roost: America IsCrumbling
Finance, Mine, Oil & Debt Disasters: THIS Is Deregulation
Reaganomics killed America’s middle class
This country’s fate was sealed when our government slashed taxes on the rich back in 1980
There's nothing "normal" about having a middle class. Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it's a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation's middle class.
Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly. The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens' novels.
At the top there is a very small class of superrich. Below them, there is a slightly larger, but still very small, "middle" class of professionals and mercantilists - doctor, lawyers, shop-owners - who help keep things running for the superrich and supply the working poor with their needs. And at the very bottom there is the great mass of people - typically over 90 percent of the population - who make up the working poor. They have no wealth - in fact they're typically in debt most of their lives - and can barely survive on what little money they make.
So, for average working people, there is no such thing as a middle class in "normal" capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people. Inequality is the default option.
You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits. Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes on capitalism in 1981, and today, with more classical "raw capitalism," what we call "Reaganomics," or "supply side economics," our nation's largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $10 an hour.
This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed - this huge change was done in less than 35 years.
The only ways a working-class "middle class" can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval - a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century - or by heavily taxing the rich.
French economist Thomas Piketty has talked about this at great length in his groundbreaking new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. He argues that the middle class that came about in Western Europe and the United States during the mid-twentieth was the direct result of a peculiar set of historical events.
According to Piketty, the post-World War II middle class was created by two major things: the destruction of European inherited wealth during the war and higher taxes on the rich, most of which were rationalized by the war. This brought wealth and income at the top down, and raised working people up into a middle class.
Piketty is right, especially about the importance of high marginal tax rates and inheritance taxes being necessary for the creation of a middle class that includes working-class people. Progressive taxation, when done correctly, pushes wages down to working people and reduces the incentives for the very rich to pillage their companies or rip off their workers. After all, why take another billion when 91 percent of it just going to be paid in taxes?
This is the main reason why, when GM was our largest employer and our working class were also in the middle class, CEOs only took home 30 times what working people did. The top tax rate for all the time America's middle class was created was between 74 and 91 percent. Until, of course, Reagan dropped it to 28 percent and working people moved from the middle class to becoming the working poor.
Other policies, like protective tariffs and strong labor laws also help build a middle class, but progressive taxation is the most important because it is the most direct way to transfer money from the rich to the working poor, and to create a disincentive to theft or monopoly by those at the top.
History shows how important high taxes on the rich are for creating a strong middle class.
If you compare a chart showing the historical top income tax rate over the course of the twentieth century with a chart of income inequality in the United States over roughly the same time period, you'll see that the period with the highest taxes on the rich - the period between the Roosevelt and Reagan administrations - was also the period with the lowest levels of economic inequality.
You'll also notice that since marginal tax rates started to plummet during the Reagan years, income inequality has skyrocketed.
Even more striking, during those same 33 years since Reagan took office and started cutting taxes on the rich, income levels for the top 1 percent have ballooned while income levels for everyone else have stayed pretty much flat.
Coincidence? I think not.
Creating a middle class is always a choice, and by embracing Reaganomics and cutting taxes on the rich, we decided back in 1980 not to have a middle class within a generation or two. George H.W. Bush saw this, and correctly called it "Voodoo Economics." And we're still in the era of Reaganomics - as President Obama recently pointed out, Reagan was a successful revolutionary.
This, of course, is exactly what conservatives always push for. When wealth is spread more equally among all parts of society, people start to expect more from society and start demanding more rights. That leads to social instability, which is feared and hated by conservatives, even though revolutionaries and liberals like Thomas Jefferson welcome it.
And, as Kirk and Buckley predicted back in the 1950s, this is exactly what happened in the 1960s and '70s when taxes on the rich were at their highest. The Civil Rights movement, the women's movement, the consumer movement, the anti-war movement, and the environmental movement - social movements that grew out of the wealth and rising expectations of the post-World War II era's middle class - these all terrified conservatives. Which is why ever since they took power in 1980, they've made gutting working people out of the middle class their number one goal.
We now have a choice in this country. We can either continue going down the road to oligarchy, the road we've been on since the Reagan years, or we can choose to go on the road to a more pluralistic society with working class people able to make it into the middle class. We can't have both.
And if we want to go down the road to letting working people back into the middle class, it all starts with taxing the rich.
The time is long past due for us to roll back the Reagan tax cuts.
This country’s fate was sealed when our government slashed taxes on the rich back in 1980
There's nothing "normal" about having a middle class. Having a middle class is a choice that a society has to make, and it's a choice we need to make again in this generation, if we want to stop the destruction of the remnants of the last generation's middle class.
Despite what you might read in the Wall Street Journal or see on Fox News, capitalism is not an economic system that produces a middle class. In fact, if left to its own devices, capitalism tends towards vast levels of inequality and monopoly. The natural and most stable state of capitalism actually looks a lot like the Victorian England depicted in Charles Dickens' novels.
At the top there is a very small class of superrich. Below them, there is a slightly larger, but still very small, "middle" class of professionals and mercantilists - doctor, lawyers, shop-owners - who help keep things running for the superrich and supply the working poor with their needs. And at the very bottom there is the great mass of people - typically over 90 percent of the population - who make up the working poor. They have no wealth - in fact they're typically in debt most of their lives - and can barely survive on what little money they make.
So, for average working people, there is no such thing as a middle class in "normal" capitalism. Wealth accumulates at the very top among the elites, not among everyday working people. Inequality is the default option.
You can see this trend today in America. When we had heavily regulated and taxed capitalism in the post-war era, the largest employer in America was General Motors, and they paid working people what would be, in today's dollars, about $50 an hour with benefits. Reagan began deregulating and cutting taxes on capitalism in 1981, and today, with more classical "raw capitalism," what we call "Reaganomics," or "supply side economics," our nation's largest employer is WalMart and they pay around $10 an hour.
This is how quickly capitalism reorients itself when the brakes of regulation and taxes are removed - this huge change was done in less than 35 years.
The only ways a working-class "middle class" can come about in a capitalist society are by massive social upheaval - a middle class emerged after the Black Plague in Europe in the 14th century - or by heavily taxing the rich.
French economist Thomas Piketty has talked about this at great length in his groundbreaking new book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century. He argues that the middle class that came about in Western Europe and the United States during the mid-twentieth was the direct result of a peculiar set of historical events.
According to Piketty, the post-World War II middle class was created by two major things: the destruction of European inherited wealth during the war and higher taxes on the rich, most of which were rationalized by the war. This brought wealth and income at the top down, and raised working people up into a middle class.
Piketty is right, especially about the importance of high marginal tax rates and inheritance taxes being necessary for the creation of a middle class that includes working-class people. Progressive taxation, when done correctly, pushes wages down to working people and reduces the incentives for the very rich to pillage their companies or rip off their workers. After all, why take another billion when 91 percent of it just going to be paid in taxes?
This is the main reason why, when GM was our largest employer and our working class were also in the middle class, CEOs only took home 30 times what working people did. The top tax rate for all the time America's middle class was created was between 74 and 91 percent. Until, of course, Reagan dropped it to 28 percent and working people moved from the middle class to becoming the working poor.
Other policies, like protective tariffs and strong labor laws also help build a middle class, but progressive taxation is the most important because it is the most direct way to transfer money from the rich to the working poor, and to create a disincentive to theft or monopoly by those at the top.
History shows how important high taxes on the rich are for creating a strong middle class.
If you compare a chart showing the historical top income tax rate over the course of the twentieth century with a chart of income inequality in the United States over roughly the same time period, you'll see that the period with the highest taxes on the rich - the period between the Roosevelt and Reagan administrations - was also the period with the lowest levels of economic inequality.
You'll also notice that since marginal tax rates started to plummet during the Reagan years, income inequality has skyrocketed.
Even more striking, during those same 33 years since Reagan took office and started cutting taxes on the rich, income levels for the top 1 percent have ballooned while income levels for everyone else have stayed pretty much flat.
Coincidence? I think not.
Creating a middle class is always a choice, and by embracing Reaganomics and cutting taxes on the rich, we decided back in 1980 not to have a middle class within a generation or two. George H.W. Bush saw this, and correctly called it "Voodoo Economics." And we're still in the era of Reaganomics - as President Obama recently pointed out, Reagan was a successful revolutionary.
This, of course, is exactly what conservatives always push for. When wealth is spread more equally among all parts of society, people start to expect more from society and start demanding more rights. That leads to social instability, which is feared and hated by conservatives, even though revolutionaries and liberals like Thomas Jefferson welcome it.
And, as Kirk and Buckley predicted back in the 1950s, this is exactly what happened in the 1960s and '70s when taxes on the rich were at their highest. The Civil Rights movement, the women's movement, the consumer movement, the anti-war movement, and the environmental movement - social movements that grew out of the wealth and rising expectations of the post-World War II era's middle class - these all terrified conservatives. Which is why ever since they took power in 1980, they've made gutting working people out of the middle class their number one goal.
We now have a choice in this country. We can either continue going down the road to oligarchy, the road we've been on since the Reagan years, or we can choose to go on the road to a more pluralistic society with working class people able to make it into the middle class. We can't have both.
And if we want to go down the road to letting working people back into the middle class, it all starts with taxing the rich.
The time is long past due for us to roll back the Reagan tax cuts.
I agree just can not get the facts into these right wingers heads....they simply ignore the facts......
Deficit by President: What Budget Deficits Hide
By Dollar and Percent
Which President ran the largest budget deficits? There are two ways to answer that question. The most popular way is to add up the deficits for each year the President was in office. But a President doesn’t control the first year’s deficit. The previous President and Congress already approved that federal budget. That's because the Federal government's fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30.
As a result, a new President has no influence on the deficit for January through September 30 of that first year.
So, the best way is to look at the budget each President created. Then add the deficits for those budgets. That reflects the President's priorities in black and white. It measures the impact of deficit spending and tax changes in dollars and cents.
5 Factors That Influence the Deficit
The President is ultimately responsible for the budget deficit. But there are five influential factors.
First, the President has no control over the mandatory budget or its deficit. That includes Social Security and Medicare benefits. They are the two biggest expenses any President has. The mandatory budget estimates what these programs will cost. The Acts of Congress that created the programs also mandate the spending. Unless the President can get Congress to remove or change them, he's got to live with that spending.
Second, the Constitution gave Congress, not the President, the power to control spending. The President’s budget is starting point. Each house of Congress prepares a discretionary spending budget. They combine them into the final budget that the President reviews and signs. For more, see Budget Process
Third, each President inherits many of his predecessors' policies. For example, every President suffered from lower revenue. That's a result of President Reagan's and President Bush's tax cuts. Presidents who raise taxes quickly become unpopular. As a result, tax cuts rarely disappear.
Fourth, some Presidents had to deal with catastrophic events. President Obama responded to the worst recession since the Great Depression. President Bush reacted to the 9/11 terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina. Their required responses came with economic price tags.
Fifth, each year's deficit adds to the debt. But the total amount added to the debt each year is usually more than the deficit. That's because Presidents can "borrow" from the Social Security Trust Fund. That's the largest of the federal retirement funds that run a surplus. That makes the deficit smaller than what's added to the debt. For example, President Bush's stated budget deficits totaled $3.294 trillion. But he added $5.849 trillion to the debt.
He borrowed the rest from Social Security in an off-budget transaction. See How Much Each President Contributed to the Debt.
President Barack Obama
President Obama has the largest deficits. By the end of his final budget (FY 2017), his deficits will total $6.616 trillion. Obama took office during the Great Recession. He immediately needed to spend billions to stop it. He convinced Congress to add the $787 billion economic stimulus package to Bush’s FY 2009 budget. It added $253 billion to the FY 2009 budget. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added the remaining $534 billion over the rest of Obama’s terms.
In 2010, the Obama tax cut added $858 billion to the debt in its first two years. Obama increased defense spending, adding as much as $800 billion a year. Federal income decreased due to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
Both Presidents Bush and Obama suffered from higher mandatory spending than their predecessors did. Social Security and Medicare benefits eating up more of the budget. That's because health care costs were rising as the American population aged. In 2010, Obama launched the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It sought to reduce health care spending. That would lower the debt by $143 billion by 2020. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.
President George W. Bush
President Bush is next, racking up $3.293 trillion over two terms. He responded to the attacks on 9/11 with the War on Terror. That sent military spending to a higher level of $600 billion a year. The Bush tax cuts, also known as EGTRRA and JGTRRA, cut taxes to address the 2001 recession. Unfortunately, the cuts did not sunset when the recession was over. That worsened the housing boom and depleted revenues during the 2008 recession. He attacked the 2008 financial crisis with the $700 billion bailout. Congress added it to the mandatory budget. There it became the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
President Ronald Reagan
President Reagan added $1.412 trillion in deficits, nearly doubling the debt. He fought the 1982 recession by cutting the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Reagan cut the corporate rate from 48 percent to 34 percent. He also increased government spending by 2.5 percent a year. That included a 35 percent increase in the defense budget and an expansion of Medicare.
President George H.W. Bush
President George H.W. Bush created a $1.03 trillion deficit in one term. He responded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with Desert Storm. He oversaw the $125 billion bailout that ended the 1989 Savings and Loan crisis. The 1991 recession cut into tax revenue.
Budget Deficits by Fiscal Year
Although most other Presidents ran deficits, none came close to these four. Part of that is because the U.S. economy, as measured by GDP, was so much smaller for other Presidents. For example, in 1981 GDP was only $3 trillion, growing by five times to $15 trillion in 2012.
The table below shows each President's annual budget deficits since Woodrow Wilson. For more, see Deficit by Year and Debt by Year.
President Barack Obama: Total Projected Plus Actual Deficits = $6.616 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
President Bill Clinton: Total = $63 billion surplus, a 1 percent decrease.
President George H.W. Bush: Total = $1.036 trillion, a 36 percent increase.
President Ronald Reagan: Total = $1.412 trillion, a 142 percent increase
President Jimmy Carter: Total = $253 billion, a 36 percent increase.
President Gerald Ford: Total = $181 billion, a 38 percent increase.
President Richard Nixon: Total = $70 billion, a 20 percent increase.
President Lyndon B. Johnson: Total = $36 billion, an 11 percent increase.
President John F. Kennedy: Total = $18 billion, a 6 percent increase.
President Dwight Eisenhower: Total = $15 billion, a 6 percent increase.
4 pres with largest deficit
While most U.S. presidents over the past 75 years have run budget deficits for many if not all of their years in office, there are four whose deficits have far exceeded those of their peers. The four presidents who have run the largest deficits are, in order from most to least, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
There are two ways to look at the U.S. budget deficit when determining which president has run the largest deficit. The first is to look at each president's term or terms in office, total the deficits run over the course of their four or eight years and base your conclusions on those numbers. According to this method, Barack Obama's budget is projected to run a deficit of $7.3 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.
While totaling the deficit over each president's term to see who has run the largest deficit seems to be common sense on the surface, the responsibility for the budget is not so black and white a question. For one thing, Congress has to vote to approve the U.S. budget and the allocation of government spending for things such as economic stimulus packages or affordable health care that add to the deficit. For another, mandatory spending is automatically built into the budget for national programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare. These programs are acts of Congress and would require further acts to amend or eliminate them. The federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30; for the first nine months a new president is in office, he is working with the budget laid down by his predecessor.
The laws governing the federal fiscal year are the reason that a second way to look at budget deficits is on a year-by-year basis. In years when a new president is elected, there are two plans at work: the old plan laid out by the previous administration and the new plan brought in by the new president. The single largest budget deficit in U.S. history happened during such a year; the 2009 fiscal year clocked a $1.412 trillion deficit. For the first third of that year, President George W. Bush was in office, while for the last eight months, Barack Obama took the White House. In October 2008, after Bush's budget was approved for the 2009 fiscal year, the Dow dropped dramatically, recording three of its 10 worst-ever days in a single month. After Obama took office, fears of a looming recession encouraged Congress to pass an economic stimulus package, immediately adding a further $253 billion to Bush's already-approved budget, and making the $1.412 trillion deficit the work of two administrations.
By Dollar and Percent
Which President ran the largest budget deficits? There are two ways to answer that question. The most popular way is to add up the deficits for each year the President was in office. But a President doesn’t control the first year’s deficit. The previous President and Congress already approved that federal budget. That's because the Federal government's fiscal year runs from October 1 through September 30.
As a result, a new President has no influence on the deficit for January through September 30 of that first year.
So, the best way is to look at the budget each President created. Then add the deficits for those budgets. That reflects the President's priorities in black and white. It measures the impact of deficit spending and tax changes in dollars and cents.
5 Factors That Influence the Deficit
The President is ultimately responsible for the budget deficit. But there are five influential factors.
First, the President has no control over the mandatory budget or its deficit. That includes Social Security and Medicare benefits. They are the two biggest expenses any President has. The mandatory budget estimates what these programs will cost. The Acts of Congress that created the programs also mandate the spending. Unless the President can get Congress to remove or change them, he's got to live with that spending.
Second, the Constitution gave Congress, not the President, the power to control spending. The President’s budget is starting point. Each house of Congress prepares a discretionary spending budget. They combine them into the final budget that the President reviews and signs. For more, see Budget Process
Third, each President inherits many of his predecessors' policies. For example, every President suffered from lower revenue. That's a result of President Reagan's and President Bush's tax cuts. Presidents who raise taxes quickly become unpopular. As a result, tax cuts rarely disappear.
Fourth, some Presidents had to deal with catastrophic events. President Obama responded to the worst recession since the Great Depression. President Bush reacted to the 9/11 terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina. Their required responses came with economic price tags.
Fifth, each year's deficit adds to the debt. But the total amount added to the debt each year is usually more than the deficit. That's because Presidents can "borrow" from the Social Security Trust Fund. That's the largest of the federal retirement funds that run a surplus. That makes the deficit smaller than what's added to the debt. For example, President Bush's stated budget deficits totaled $3.294 trillion. But he added $5.849 trillion to the debt.
He borrowed the rest from Social Security in an off-budget transaction. See How Much Each President Contributed to the Debt.
President Barack Obama
President Obama has the largest deficits. By the end of his final budget (FY 2017), his deficits will total $6.616 trillion. Obama took office during the Great Recession. He immediately needed to spend billions to stop it. He convinced Congress to add the $787 billion economic stimulus package to Bush’s FY 2009 budget. It added $253 billion to the FY 2009 budget. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added the remaining $534 billion over the rest of Obama’s terms.
In 2010, the Obama tax cut added $858 billion to the debt in its first two years. Obama increased defense spending, adding as much as $800 billion a year. Federal income decreased due to lower tax receipts from the 2008 financial crisis.
Both Presidents Bush and Obama suffered from higher mandatory spending than their predecessors did. Social Security and Medicare benefits eating up more of the budget. That's because health care costs were rising as the American population aged. In 2010, Obama launched the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It sought to reduce health care spending. That would lower the debt by $143 billion by 2020. For more, see National Debt Under Obama.
President George W. Bush
President Bush is next, racking up $3.293 trillion over two terms. He responded to the attacks on 9/11 with the War on Terror. That sent military spending to a higher level of $600 billion a year. The Bush tax cuts, also known as EGTRRA and JGTRRA, cut taxes to address the 2001 recession. Unfortunately, the cuts did not sunset when the recession was over. That worsened the housing boom and depleted revenues during the 2008 recession. He attacked the 2008 financial crisis with the $700 billion bailout. Congress added it to the mandatory budget. There it became the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).
President Ronald Reagan
President Reagan added $1.412 trillion in deficits, nearly doubling the debt. He fought the 1982 recession by cutting the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 28 percent. Reagan cut the corporate rate from 48 percent to 34 percent. He also increased government spending by 2.5 percent a year. That included a 35 percent increase in the defense budget and an expansion of Medicare.
President George H.W. Bush
President George H.W. Bush created a $1.03 trillion deficit in one term. He responded to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait with Desert Storm. He oversaw the $125 billion bailout that ended the 1989 Savings and Loan crisis. The 1991 recession cut into tax revenue.
Budget Deficits by Fiscal Year
Although most other Presidents ran deficits, none came close to these four. Part of that is because the U.S. economy, as measured by GDP, was so much smaller for other Presidents. For example, in 1981 GDP was only $3 trillion, growing by five times to $15 trillion in 2012.
The table below shows each President's annual budget deficits since Woodrow Wilson. For more, see Deficit by Year and Debt by Year.
President Barack Obama: Total Projected Plus Actual Deficits = $6.616 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
- FY 2017 - $441 billion projected.
- FY 2016 - $600 billion expected.
- FY 2015 - $438 billion.
- FY 2014 - $485 billion.
- FY 2013 - $679 billion.
- FY 2012 - $1.087 trillion.
- FY 2011 - $1.300 trillion.
- FY 2010 - $1.587 ($1.294 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).
President George W. Bush: Total = $3.293 trillion, a 57 percent increase.
- FY 2009 - $1.16 trillion. ($1.413 trillion minus $253 billion from Obama's Stimulus Act)
- FY 2008 - $459 billion.
- FY 2007 - $161 billion.
- FY 2006 - $248 billion.
- FY 2005 - $318 billion.
- FY 2004 - $413 billion.
- FY 2003 - $378 billion.
- FY 2002 - $158 billion.
President Bill Clinton: Total = $63 billion surplus, a 1 percent decrease.
- FY 2001 - $128 billion surplus.
- FY 2000 - $236 billion surplus.
- FY 1999 - $126 billion surplus.
- FY 1998 - $69 billion surplus.
- FY 1997 - $22 billion.
- FY 1996 - $107 billion.
- FY 1995 - $164 billion.
- FY 1994 - $203 billion.
President George H.W. Bush: Total = $1.036 trillion, a 36 percent increase.
- FY 1993 - $255 billion.
- FY 1992 - $290 billion.
- FY 1991 - $269 billion.
- FY 1990 - $221 billion.
President Ronald Reagan: Total = $1.412 trillion, a 142 percent increase
- FY 1989 - $153 billion.
- FY 1988 - $155 billion.
- FY 1987 - $150 billion.
- FY 1986 - $221 billion.
- FY 1985 - $212 billion.
- FY 1984 - $185 billion.
- FY 1983 - $208 billion.
- FY 1982 - $128 billion.
President Jimmy Carter: Total = $253 billion, a 36 percent increase.
- FY 1981 - $79 billion.
- FY 1980 - $74 billion.
- FY 1979 - $41 billion.
- FY 1978 - $59 billion.
President Gerald Ford: Total = $181 billion, a 38 percent increase.
- FY 1977 - $54 billion.
- FY 1976 - $74 billion.
- FY 1975 - $53 billion.
President Richard Nixon: Total = $70 billion, a 20 percent increase.
- FY 1974 - $6 billion.
- FY 1973 - $15 billion.
- FY 1972 - $23 billion.
- FY 1971 - $23 billion.
- FY 1970 - $3 billion.
President Lyndon B. Johnson: Total = $36 billion, an 11 percent increase.
- FY 1969 - $3 billion surplus.
- FY 1968 - $25 billion.
- FY 1967 - $9 billion.
- FY 1966 - $4 billion.
- FY 1965 - $1 billion.
President John F. Kennedy: Total = $18 billion, a 6 percent increase.
- FY 1964 - $6 billion.
- FY 1963 - $5 billion.
- FY 1962 - $7 billion.
President Dwight Eisenhower: Total = $15 billion, a 6 percent increase.
- FY 1961 - $3 billion.
- FY 1960 - $0 billion (slight surplus).
- FY 1959 - $13 billion.
- FY 1958 - $3 billion.
- FY 1957 - $3 billion surplus.
- FY 1956 - $4 billion surplus.
4 pres with largest deficit
While most U.S. presidents over the past 75 years have run budget deficits for many if not all of their years in office, there are four whose deficits have far exceeded those of their peers. The four presidents who have run the largest deficits are, in order from most to least, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
There are two ways to look at the U.S. budget deficit when determining which president has run the largest deficit. The first is to look at each president's term or terms in office, total the deficits run over the course of their four or eight years and base your conclusions on those numbers. According to this method, Barack Obama's budget is projected to run a deficit of $7.3 trillion over his eight years, making him the president with the largest budget deficit. George W. Bush is second, with a deficit of $3.29 trillion over his eight years. Ronald Reagan is third at $1.412 trillion deficit in eight years and George H.W. Bush comes in fourth with a $1.03 trillion deficit in his single term.
While totaling the deficit over each president's term to see who has run the largest deficit seems to be common sense on the surface, the responsibility for the budget is not so black and white a question. For one thing, Congress has to vote to approve the U.S. budget and the allocation of government spending for things such as economic stimulus packages or affordable health care that add to the deficit. For another, mandatory spending is automatically built into the budget for national programs such as Social Security, welfare and Medicare. These programs are acts of Congress and would require further acts to amend or eliminate them. The federal fiscal year runs from October 1 to September 30; for the first nine months a new president is in office, he is working with the budget laid down by his predecessor.
The laws governing the federal fiscal year are the reason that a second way to look at budget deficits is on a year-by-year basis. In years when a new president is elected, there are two plans at work: the old plan laid out by the previous administration and the new plan brought in by the new president. The single largest budget deficit in U.S. history happened during such a year; the 2009 fiscal year clocked a $1.412 trillion deficit. For the first third of that year, President George W. Bush was in office, while for the last eight months, Barack Obama took the White House. In October 2008, after Bush's budget was approved for the 2009 fiscal year, the Dow dropped dramatically, recording three of its 10 worst-ever days in a single month. After Obama took office, fears of a looming recession encouraged Congress to pass an economic stimulus package, immediately adding a further $253 billion to Bush's already-approved budget, and making the $1.412 trillion deficit the work of two administrations.
| Jobs Created in Thousands | President | Political Party |
| 6,566 | Franklin D. Roosevelt | Democrat |
| 8,781 | Harry S. Truman | Democrat |
| 1,556 | Dwight D. Eisenhower | Republican |
| 2,729 | John F. Kennedy | Democrat |
| 8,895 | Lyndon B. Johnson | Democrat |
| 5,254 | Richard Nixon | Republican |
| 2,235 | Gerald Ford | Republican |
| 8,601 | Jimmy Carter | Democrat |
| 13,621 | Ronald Reagan | Republican |
| 1,084 | George H. W. Bush | Republican |
| 19,662 | Bill Clinton | Democrat |
| -338 | George W. Bush | Republican |
| 7,765 | Barack Obama | Democrat |
Trillion-Dollar Deficits Are Nearly Here. Thanks, Republicans!
https://reason.com/2018/09/21/trillion-deficits-debt-republicans-trump
Sep 21, 2018 · Trump wants to spend money—but Republicans don't want to raise more revenue to pay for it. Last year's tax bill added more than $1.5 trillion to …
https://reason.com/2018/09/21/trillion-deficits-debt-republicans-trump
Sep 21, 2018 · Trump wants to spend money—but Republicans don't want to raise more revenue to pay for it. Last year's tax bill added more than $1.5 trillion to …
