Mike_Hunt

The Chinese have one thing in common with Democrats. They are both excellent at propaganda.

The huge drivers of the debt are the social programs.

Trump expects other counties to spend more on their own defense and you disagree with anything Trump says. Why do you hate the US taxpayer?

If you are conservative you should understand the trajectory of the federal budget and the implications. The USA cannot afford to be the protectorate of the entire world. You only disagree because Trump. I hope you can understand that.

You support the MIC at a significant cost to the taxpayer. Trump turned you lefties into war mongers. I hope you can understand that.

The Dems did build a government that we can't afford.

It's funny that Trump turned you lefties into a group of war mongers. The USA can no longer afford to protect the entire Western world.

Which is why the USA has 36T in debt. I hope you can understand that.

Trump?

What?

Other nations are too lazy to take care of themselves.

At a great cost to the US taxpayer.

Why do all these countries feel the USA needs to be their protector?

It seems the test was too hard for your pea brain.

You failed the multiple-choice test.

Democrats are useless.

Yea, right. This will never happen.

Trump is living rent free in your head.

No, Bill Clinton Didn’t Balance the Budget Many in the media have flubbed this story. The New York Times on October 1st said, “Clinton balances the budget.” Others have praised George Bush. Political analyst Bill Schneider declared on CNN that Bush is one of “the real heroes” for his willingness to raise taxes — and never mind read my lips. (Once upon a time, lying was something that was considered wrong in Washington, but under the last two presidents our standards have dropped.) In any case, crediting George Bush for the end of the deficit requires some nifty logical somersaults, since the deficit hit its Mount Everest peak of $290 billion in St. George’s last year in office. And 1993 — the year of the giant Clinton tax hike — was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president’s own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook? Newt Gingrich and company — for all their faults — have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today’s surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP’s single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich’s finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years. https://www.cato.org/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget

The OP is correct.

Why do you post these lies? List of budget surpluses since WW2 1947-1949: The first post-war period of surpluses, lasting three years. Truman (D) 1956: A single year of surplus amidst a period of deficits. Eisenhower (R) 1957: Another surplus year, following the 1956 surplus. Eisenhower (R) 1960: A surplus year during the Eisenhower administration. Kennedy (D) 1969: The last surplus year until the 1990s, marking a significant gap. Nixon (R) 1998-2001: A period of eight consecutive years of surpluses, ending in 2001. Clinton (D)

You are correct.

This warms my heart.

Bill Clinton played a significant role in deregulating the U.S. banking system. In 1999, he signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed key provisions of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing commercial banks to engage in investment activities previously restricted to investment banks, and vice versa.24 This move was supported by Clinton's advisers, who argued that the separation between banking and other financial services mandated by Glass-Steagall was outdated in a globalized financial environment.2 The repeal of Glass-Steagall and subsequent deregulation measures led to a significant consolidation in the banking industry. By 2016, 57 percent of U.S. banks had disappeared, reducing the number of FDIC-insured commercial banks from 14,146 in 1934 to 6,172, with the largest banks becoming even larger and more dominant.

You are wrong. You should not comment on what you don't understand.