It's a matter of Bidenomics!

What are you talking about? Obviously not every larger increase with a larger baseline is going to be a smaller percentage increase, it depends on both the baseline and the increase in question. When debt X increases by Y, the percentage increase is Y/X (x 100). Increasing X reduces the percentage increase. Increasing Y increases the percentage increase. To calculate the percentage increase, those are the only two variables. That's why Reagan, who increased the debt by $1.6 trillion in 8 years had a larger percentage increase than Biden, who has increased the debt more than $5 trillion in 3 years. You can also see that Reagan increased the debt nearly 8 times as much as Carter, but the percentage increase was only 4.5 times as much (because he had a larger baseline debt, a bigger X in the formula.

 

lol. says the guy who can't be bothered to write full sentences or spell out words like you're

 

Yes, it was poorly worded, it should have said having a higher baseline of debt means that even a larger increase in the debt can be a lower percentage increase.

 

Obviously I did, because I gave an illustration of exactly what I was talking about. I just made a clumsily worded sentence.

 

Heh, another misdirect on a weekend. @adoo doo be keeping me rent free in his tiny heart and mind on a hot summer weekend.

Keep clinging on to that point like a halfshit dingleberry while the Fed is projected to accrue 100M losses per year over the next decade based off their massive asset spending spree of 2020-21 and subsequent rate hikes.

I mentioned in the first post years ago that it won't count against the Fed. It still matters.

But you do you and twist a response with a weird self imposed years long grudge rather than putting your real thoughts on the table.

 

U.S. Budget Deficit by Year (thebalancemoney.com)
This is every budget deficit and debt increase since 1929. As you can see, 2020 is by far the biggest year (that's under Trump), at a debt increase of 4.226 trillion dollars. FDR's largest debt increase was 1944, with $64 billion (about 1.5% of the 2020 debt increase). Woodrow Wilson added $21 billion over 8 years (so about a third of what FDR did in his highest single year). Reagan's highest year was $302 billion, nearly 5 times FDR's biggest year, but less than 10% of Trump's biggest year. GWB's biggest year was 2008, at just over a trillion dollars, less than a quarter of Trump's biggest year and less than any Biden year. Carter's biggest year was $81 billion, about 1/3 again as much as FDR's biggest year. Trump, as already mentioned, is number one and there isn't a close number 2. Biden's biggest year (so far) was last year, adding 2.238 trillion to the debt, a bit more than half of Trump's biggest single year. If the debt increase for 2024 comes in under $2.247 billion, he won't pass Trump for the highest single term total in dollars added to the debt. Now, obviously this doesn't adjust for inflation or anything, but in terms of raw numbers, that's where things stand.

 

Why do you act as if Trump will somehow lower the debt. Trumps policies will raise the national debt by a minimum of 5.2 trillion dollars at a minimum. Biden budget proposal will balance the budget over a 10 year period vs trump who doesnt even have a plan to lower the deficit.

I dont understand why folks in this thread act as if Trump will somehow be better for national debt. Hes promising on gutting the IRS + extending his tax scam to the top 5%

Congress did not implement the budget that the WH put forward. The budget put forward by the WH would balance the budget over the next decade. Trump has no plan to lower the debt or even cares about balancing the budget.

 

I haven't. Source?

You could be projecting that I'm writing this as something pro-Trump to make it easier to disbelieve.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bideno...-spending-ccadee9c?mod=hp_opin_pos_2#cxrecs_s

Bidenomics, Also Known as MMT
The crazy economic theory that spending has no consequences.
By Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore
June 23, 2024 at 2:59 pm ET

Sometimes ideas that seem obviously silly catch on and cause serious destruction. In the late 2000s Australian economist Bill Mitchell coined the term “Modern Monetary Theory,” or MMT, to describe what one might call Keynesianism on steroids. John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) argued that government should stimulate the economy by spending and borrowing during a short-term shock like an economic crisis or a war, then pull back to a reasonable level of spending and debt once the crisis has passed.

Under MMT, the crisis never ends. Proponents posit that because the dollar is the world reserve currency and the Treasury can sell bonds at low interest rates, Uncle Sam can spend and borrow limitlessly with no economic risk. As Stephanie Kelton, an economist at Stony Brook University, put it: “Deficits can help us fight a myriad of problems that plague our economy—inequality, poverty and unemployment, climate change, housing, health care, and more.”

Free-market economists scoffed. History is littered with nations that tried to spend and borrow their way to prosperity: ancient Rome, interwar Germany, Argentina, postwar Britain, and more recently Bolivia, Mexico, Zimbabwe, Greece and Venezuela.

But on the left, MMT caught on as an explanation for why Barack Obama’s nearly $800 billion stimulus plan in 2009 failed to yield anything like the promised 4% annual growth. They said the spending wasn’t enough.

In 2020 the Democratic Party fully embraced MMT. Ms. Kelton served as a top economic adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, runner-up for the party’s nomination, and later co-authored a report for the Biden campaign that served as a blueprint for its spending blowout. In 2021 MMT gave the administration and Democratic lawmakers an academic imprimatur for the avalanche of spending, four times as large as Mr. Obama’s stimulus 12 years earlier.

Donald Trump had already unwisely presided over a Covid-relief spending spree. Mr. Biden persuaded Congress to shovel $4 trillion into social-welfare programs, corporate-welfare grants, leftist environmental programs, college and healthcare subsidies and more. In a testament to MMT’s sway, 17 Nobel economics laureates signed a 2021 statement asserting that all this spending “will ease longer-term inflationary pressures.”

Never mind that the economy was already bouncing back as businesses reopened. Mr. Biden and the MMT crowd thought they had invented a perpetual-motion machine. Instead, they unleashed the worst inflation in 40 years.

Average weekly earnings of employees rose 15% between January 2021 and May 2024. But that was a loss in real terms, since prices were up 19%. Even with trillions in handouts, working Americans have seen their average real annual income decline by more than $2,300 in today’s dollars. To our knowledge, not one of those Nobel economists has issued a retraction.

Mr. Laffer is the president of Laffer & Associates. Mr. Moore is a visiting senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation. They are co-founders of the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
​

​

 

once again, I've simply reposted an essay from a well-known media source