“Federal debt to exceed GDP for first time since World War II”

On the pre-corona trajectory, this was not supposed to happen for about 11 years!

22 thoughts on ““Federal debt to exceed GDP for first time since World War II”

  1. TARP was created jointly by Paulson at Treasury and Bernanke at the Fed during the last few months of the Bush Admin. Candidates McCain and Obama signed on. President Obama stuck to the course and after it had served its purpose TARP was wound down. The only significant opposition at the time were leftwards like the Bern and rightwards of the moronic sort who became the nucleus of the Tea Party. Some of my Treasury days buds were actually detailed to TARP – and they weren’t the typical losers managers don’t mind losing to details. My hands are clean, my brain is clean, and my memory is the cleanest of all. Unlike yours. Btw, is there anything you actually know beans about?

  2. LOL. You can’t possibly get angrier at them than this EX-Republican . Watching my old party becoming “the Party of Stupid” (thank you, Jindal) since the early 90s has not been fun.
    Post away!

  3. Roger: No prob. I do get testy when people throw me in with the Norquislings and Trumpbots on economics. My fiscal views are pretty much along the same lines as Samuelson in WAPO or the Simpson/Bowles conclusions. That is to say, not popular in either party right now.

    1. Apologies again, Bill. I get so angry at the Trumpers and Republicans I really should not post sometimes. Or any of the time, I am sure they agree.

  4. The TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) passed and was signed into law by George W Bush in October 2008.

  5. “Republicans”: Spend and cut taxes.
    Democrats – Spend more and fund it just by “taxing the rich”

    We’re screwed either way.

      1. I very much want to see how Bill Deecee, Brobonk, and/or Steverino deal with this. This always seems to me to the kind of thing that is irrefutable, and yet people like them have no problem with it at all. This should make a very good example of how.

        1. If it was up to me, the banks should have fallen in 2008. Saving them was Obama’s doing. That was the biggest bailout in history for the wealthy. The 1% bought back the assets they collapsed at 10 cents on the dollar, with bailout money, and it led to exponential wealth creation. The banks literally bankrupted America and got paid for the effort.

          1. OK, Steverino changes the subject and engages in criticism of Obama. This is despite the fact that Obama, according to fwalds figures, halved Bush the Younger’s deficit. Interesting.

          2. Total, utter, and complete bullshit. Created by Paulson at Treasury and Bernanke at the Fed. Signed by Bush and supported by candidates McCain and Obama. Guessing that none of your many degrees was in history.

          3. I agree with the bailouts being horrible, but the GOP has voted for the same thing several times as well. It happened under Bush, it happened under past Presidents, and typically is a bipartisan effort. The Reagan-Bush-Trump combo has added more to the national debt than any other combination in history though.

            Trump’s corporate tax cuts were used for stock buybacks so executives can manipulate stock prices, which raised their own compensation by selling their individual interests over time. Or they threw it into the M&A fund to buy out competitors so they can run small businesses off the market, raise prices, and cut employees. Then when a crisis happens, well, bail them out off of what already was a shaky foundation because corporations and executives have already received a giant sum of welfare.

            The only guy who voted against these things was called a socialist and lost the primary, and maybe the only people outside this view are ‘let it burn’ libertarians. That’s what happens, you don’t serve the corporate interest and take their money, and you’re ‘not electable.’ You can’t be funded by the same people and supposedly fight against their interests, thats the problem, and a problem both Republicans AND Democrats do.

          4. Bill, passed under Bush and administered under Obama’s administration. This is akin to Obama’s argument that Iraq SOFA was signed by Bush and so had to abide by it. This decision to withdraw lead directly to isis. I didn’t vote for Bush in either of his elections and I didn’t vote for Obama in either of his so I’m not defending one or both. My hands are clean. Are yours?

          5. You pay taxes, right? Shit, pretend your hands are clean if you want – doesn’t make it so.

        2. What in the hell am I doing in the same sentence with those two “More tax cuts please” folks.
          I have a major problem with the fact that BOTH parties – with the exception of the Dems in 92 through 00 (partially why so many Progs hate the Clintons)- default to fiscal irresponsibility.
          But what do I know – I only spent my whole career in Federal debt financing? Flake off.

          1. I apologize if I have misjudged you, Bill. Sometimes I am far too quick on the trigger.

  6. Didn’t they assure us that the tax cuts would more than offset by the increased revenue thrown off by the terrific economy?
    /crickets

    Not enough attention can be called to the way Republicans play the role of “deficit hawks” and “fiscal conservative”, but then run up the deficit every chance they get.

    1. “Didn’t they assure us that the tax cuts would more than offset by the increased revenue thrown off by the terrific economy?”

      Don’t they always say that? How often has it actually happened?

        1. So Republicans are like the Washington Generals?

          Seriously, my question was not rhetorical, and I do not know the answer. What is the unfiltered, unspun answer to these questions,

          “How often do tax cuts spur enough economic growth to increase tax revenues?”

          “How deep a tax cut (if any) will accomplish that end?”

          Adam – your thoughts?

Comments are closed.