Active Now

Danilo_G
Element 99
Shuhak
Discussion » Questions » Politics » 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?

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?

1)  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.

2)  The US national debt has never had any instances in which it did not increase.  To say that one president is a hero or was a hero because of how the national debt performed (or was handled), and that another president is ow was a monster because of how the national debt performed (or was handled) seems shortsighted and an ill-educated perspective of national and world economics.






Posted - May 25, 2019

Responses


  • 19942
    I believe Bill Clinton contained the national debt, got a balance budget passed and left his successor with a surplus - all while being investigated, impeached, excoriated for smoking a cigar in the Oval Office.  Frankly, if that's what it takes to get this country back on track, I say let's vote for someone like Bill Clinton. This post was edited by SpunkySenior at May 25, 2019 7:01 PM MDT
      May 25, 2019 6:38 PM MDT
    1

  • 52903

      " . . . 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
      May 25, 2019 6:49 PM MDT
    2

  • 19942
    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?
      May 25, 2019 7:17 PM MDT
    2

  • 52903

      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.
     
      Liken it to your personal budget or your household budget.  Let's say you work on your budget monthly or even bi-weekly.  If you balance your budget, that means that your income, your savings, your investments, your spending plan, etc., are all satisfied the way you expect them to be for a particular time period, either 30 days or 14/15 days.  That does not mean you owe zero dollars at the end of that month or bi-weekly period.  It merely means that the numbers aren't alarming, and you can breathe a sigh of relief.  For now.  If you have high-ticket debt, or if you have recurring payments that will become due the next period, your budget changes and evolves based on many factors.  If on the next budget cycle your income increases or decreases, your debts increase or decrease, your savings and investment balances increase or decrease, the budget you balanced last time may or may not balance this time.   If there are unforeseen events, such as a catastrophic wipeout of your expected income, or an emergency requiring a big expenditure, the recently balanced budget becomes a moot point.  Bill Clinton's administration, his time in office may have ended well as far as the US budget is concerned (I'm not stating that, I am taking your word for it), but what was the difference between the US national debt from the day he first took office to the day he left office?  I venture to state no significant change as far as lump-sum payoffs of the national debt (at least $1 trillion dollars).







      May 25, 2019 8:27 PM MDT
    2

  • 19942
    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.  
      May 25, 2019 8:42 PM MDT
    2

  • 52903

      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).

    ~




     
      May 25, 2019 9:02 PM MDT
    2

  • 19942
    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.  
      May 25, 2019 11:17 PM MDT
    1

  • 19942

    "Bill Clinton: Added $1.396 trillion, a 32 percent increase from the $4.4 trillion debt at the end of George H.W. Bush's last budget, FY 1993."

    https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296 - You can also see how much each president added as well.

     
      May 25, 2019 8:53 PM MDT
    2

  • 52903

      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.)

    ~
      May 25, 2019 9:06 PM MDT
    1

  • 19942
    I understand.  I gave you the information on Clinton which is what I promised to do.  
      May 25, 2019 11:08 PM MDT
    1

  • 52903


      Thank you.
    ~
      May 25, 2019 11:09 PM MDT
    0

  • 19942
    Any time.
      May 25, 2019 11:18 PM MDT
    0

  • 628
    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
      May 25, 2019 7:11 PM MDT
    4

  • 19942
    Not a surplus in the national debt, a surplus in the budget.
      May 25, 2019 7:18 PM MDT
    3

  • 628
    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..
      May 25, 2019 8:53 PM MDT
    2

  • 19942
    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.  
      May 25, 2019 8:56 PM MDT
    2

  • 52903
     
      We had Obama for two terms since then, do you also include his administration as what you'd rather not prefer?

    ~
      May 25, 2019 9:14 PM MDT
    3

  • 628
    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
      May 25, 2019 9:20 PM MDT
    3

  • 19942
    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.  
      May 25, 2019 11:05 PM MDT
    0

  • The purse strings STILL belong to an inept, incompetent Congress. But in fairness to Congress, millions of people actually think that the government has its own money. I've had people tell me that they preferred that the government waste its own money, not the money belonging to the rest of us out here. A sure tip off that a heck of a lot of people pay no taxes at all, as well as no attention.
      May 25, 2019 7:21 PM MDT
    4

  • 52903
    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.

      May 25, 2019 8:31 PM MDT
    3

  • 13251
    Because some folks, including some right here on AM who shall remain nameless, are so blind with hatred for a certain president that they would never let a good rant be hampered by actual, you know, facts.
      May 25, 2019 9:34 PM MDT
    2

  • 628
    Hello there Randy D
    Basic civics my good man...
    The president presents an agenda at the beginning of the fiscal year, Congress then proposes laws and a budget that is to reflect that agenda to which the President will either sign or veto.  However, we have been running on stop gaps and continuing resolutions for quiet a few years now, but it is still the president who accepts this way of spending..

      May 25, 2019 9:57 PM MDT
    3

  • 52903

      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".)
    ~
      May 25, 2019 10:16 PM MDT
    2