Why do some people assume that a US president, any US president, adds to the national debt or does not add to the national debt?

  " . . . for smoking a cigar in the Oval Office"? You're being sarcastic, right?


Containing the national debt is not the same as decreasing it; a fat feat that is probably impossible.  As for crediting Clinton with having done it, I revert to what I already posted:  There are numerous circumstances that take place during a presidential administration that have to do with the national debt, very few of which are personally or singlehandedly engineered by the sitting president.

~ This post was edited by Randy D at May 25, 2019 9:25 PM MDT

Yes, that was sarcasm.  I think you mean "feat."  I could be wrong, but wouldn't you say that balancing a budget is a first step towards lowering the national debt?

  First, thank you for catching my error; I have edited it.
  Secondly, no, balancing the US budget is not a first step toward lowering the US national debt in any significant manner. I don't believe any force on earth can lower a multi-trillion dollar debt (currently at $22 trillion), and anyone who says it can be done may be fooling himself or herself.  As for balancing the US budget, that's a temporary band-aid, and it won't solve the problem of a more than century-old national debt that continually increases.  A large payment toward the national debt does not stop more debt from accumulating either.  There is no magic bullet that will go toward a significant payment of up to $22 trillion.  Even if $100 billion of the US national debt were to be paid off at one time, the figure one billion is 1,000,000,000 and a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000, so one trillion is one thousand times one billion.  The US economy doesn't have one thousand billion dollars, or even half of that, or even one fourth of that to apply to the national debt.  The national debt will never be paid off in your lifetime, in your children's lifetime, in your grandchildren's lifetime, maybe even longer than that.  My personal opinion is that people who whine and cry about the national debt are a bunch of Chicken Littles.  That doesn't diminish the fact that the national debt is a problem, true, but realistically, clutching our pearls and wringing our hands won't change fact.

I will see if I can find out what the national debt was when Clinton took office and when he left.  I agree that household budgets vary due to many factors.  The difference is that when you overspend, you can't go to your employer and tell him you need more money, so you either have to do without to pay down what you owe, get a second job or go bankrupt.  I have made it my business to be debt free other than what I charge in any given month that gets paid in full when the statement comes due.  I have no mortgage and no car payments.  I can't recall the last time I paid interest on a credit card balance.  

  I beg to differ on two of your points above.  While you're correct overall,



1) all budgets, household, business, government, school, etc., vary due to many factors.

2) with all budgets, when overspending takes place, there are vastly more options available than the five you listed.  Go to employer, ask for more money, do without, second job, or go bankrupt.  Other options (and I'm not saying they're either good or bad, I'm just suggesting more) are that some people can and do go to their employer or other income source and ask for more, some borrow, some refinance an existing debt, some default, some skip out on their debts, some consolidate their debts, some sell off assets, etc.  Governments introduce bonds, levy new taxes, raise existing taxes, redistribute revenue, sell off assets, borrow more money, default on loans, declare bankruptcy, etc.

  The fact that your personal budget is easily managed is great, I'm sure you'd admit that you have far fewer factors that play into it than any government sees.  The US government has debt that it can't pay off in at least 50 to 100 more years, maybe even longer (it's steadily increased from the year 1789 to today, or 230 years).

~

Yes, there are many more options for people, but many of them only get you deeper in debt unless you're selling off assets that don't have to be paid back.  

Yes, governments have different options.  My point, however, is that much the same as the average person should try and stay within their means, governments need to do the same.  There is a vast amount of money that government wastes - we both know that.  The military budget is a prime example.  The military procurement system wastes more money than it should.  It pays more for many items that you or I could go into Home Depot or Lowe's and purchase for half the price.  Granted, the government is purchasing on a much larger scale, but the principle is the same.  The more the government buys, the lower the price they should pay.  

Prescription drugs are another example of waste.  Medicare is the largest government consumer of prescription meds yet Congress has refused to allow the government to negotiate prices with Big Pharma.  Most every other country has the ability to negotiate price which is why meds are so much less expensive for them.  Perfect example, I take a medication that Walgreen's charges $435 per month.  I now buy that same medication from a Canadian pharmacy and I pay $365 for THREE months, including shipping.  The only government agency that can negotiate price is the Veterans Administration.  I don't want to tell you how much less prescriptions cost through the VA, but I'm not a vet.  

  Thank you, I appreciate you having provided the information.  (I don't do links, however.  Please don't be offended if I don't open it, it's not a reflection on you or on your efforts.)

~

I understand.  I gave you the information on Clinton which is what I promised to do.  

  Thank you.
~

Any time.

Hello again Spunky Senior
President Clinton was impeached for, among the 11 charges of crime, lying to Congress while under oath, he also lost his license to practice law. While he was impeached for actual crimes, I never agreed with that whole thing.
Our national debt did increase 1.4 trillion dollars under Clinton to 5.6 trillion,.a modest amount. Then Bush and Obama exploded it.
There was no surplus when Clinton left office in the national debt.. This post was edited by designer at May 25, 2019 9:29 PM MDT

Not a surplus in the national debt, a surplus in the budget.

With some help from social security and accounting, that is certainly correct...
By the way, I would also take Clinton from the 90's....for the most part..

Yes but if I had anything to say about it, Social Security would be in a lock box never to be touched for any purpose other than payments and Medicare.  This country, during Clinton's two terms, had a great economy and we weren't at war anywhere.  I would take that in a heartbeat over what we've had since then.  

  We had Obama for two terms since then, do you also include his administration as what you'd rather not prefer?

~

Completely agree, S.S. has been looted to the point that it is going to be gone within a short period of time, shame on them...
Clinton was lucky to ride the dot-com wave, which brought a great deal of wealth to the government coffers.
As far as wars go, that isn't quite true, do you remember Serbia, Kosovo, Yugoslavia...Clinton did make a mess of those countries, the refugee crisis was horrible, 100's of thousands of Kosovans in Albania, the bombing of Serb civilians, the Danube being bombed and the destruction of all the bridges...it certainly wasn't pretty

Edited for typos  This post was edited by designer at May 25, 2019 11:03 PM MDT

No, it wasn't pretty, but we didn't have thousands and thousands of our troops there like in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The refugee crisis in other parts of the world is just as great - Syria, Yemen.  

Very good points!  I can't stand it when people turn a blind eye towards government waste, fraud and abuse of financial nature, because where in the heck do they think that money originates????   Grrrrrr.

  Thank you.  It doesn't absolve what I've stated: too many people either lionize or demonize the sitting president, the past president, the president-elect for responsibility of having personally done something, when in fact he's just a figurehead at most.  Presidential actions may initiate a particular event, but do not uniquely make them happen.  The president signs to accept the plan, but does not make it happen.


(By the way, comma after the word "there", and hyphen in "stop-gaps".)
~