# Trump has added $4 Trillion to the National Debt. Where is the Tea Party? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 14, 2019, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665 "2019-08-14T17:43:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 12:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/121 "2019-08-20T12:59:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually it’s more like we should vote for Democrats who are promising to massively increase spending because they don’t really mean it. > > It’s odd - right after I post cites that all the Democratic front-runners are going to increase spending, the Dope asserts that none of them will. > > It’s OK to admit that you don’t actually care about spending as long as Democrats are in charge, too, but Dopers are determined not to do it. From what I’ve seen of Democratic presidents during my lifetime, they may want to do everything they promised, but when confronted with facts and numbers they will accept reality and act responsibly with respect to the budget. That may mean scaling back their plans, making cuts in other parts of the budget, shifting the tax burden, or possibly even raising taxes (including mine). I’m okay with that. I want this country to be around for a long time, and to be on a sound financial footing. I have no similar faith in Republicans. They promise to bring down the deficit and I know they won’t do it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/122 "2019-08-20T13:12:16Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > [Congressional Budget Office report:](https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/GOP%20Policies%20Caused%20the%20Deficit%20REPORT%2010-15-18.pdf) _If Not for Republican Policies, the Federal Government Would Be Running a Surplus_. Funny that your cite says it came from a minority of the Senate Budget Committee, not the Congressional Budget Office. I have no doubt that you thought the cite was objective, but that’s much of the problem. “Spin from your side is clearly false, spin from my side is unassailable truth” is hardly limited to one side or the other. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/123 "2019-08-20T13:37:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Funny that your cite says it came from a minority of the Senate Budget Committee, not the Congressional Budget Office. > > I have no doubt that you thought the cite was objective, but that’s much of the problem. > “Spin from your side is clearly false, spin from my side is unassailable truth” is hardly limited to one side or the other. > > Regards, > Shodan Are the numbers in the report wrong? Do Democrats tend to propose raising taxes to pay for additional spending? Do Republicans tend to reduce taxes but not reduce spending? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/124 "2019-08-20T15:07:36Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Are the numbers in the report wrong? They’re spin. > [@](#): > > Do Democrats tend to propose raising taxes to pay for additional spending? That’s spin. > [@](#): > > Do Republicans tend to reduce taxes but not reduce spending? See above. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/125 "2019-08-20T15:19:46Z")
Fox News: facts are now spin! ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/126 "2019-08-20T15:22:31Z")
“Anything I don’t like, or that challenges my pre-existing beliefs is spin”? Why didn’t you just call it fake news? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/127 "2019-08-20T15:28:19Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They’re spin. > That’s spin. > See above. > > Regards, > Shodan IOW: ‘LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-… Regards, Shodan’ ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/128 "2019-08-20T15:36:39Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Are the numbers in the report wrong? > [@Shodan](#): > > They’re spin. “Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true. Facts schmacts.” ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/129 "2019-08-20T17:48:24Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > They’re spin. > That’s spin. > See above. > > Regards, > Shodan So no actual rebuttal to the fact that Republicans increase spending at a faster rate than Democrats, who have ACTUALLY reduced spending in the last twenty years, despite Republican claims to the opposite? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/130 "2019-08-20T19:59:40Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > So no actual rebuttal to the fact that Republicans increase spending at a faster rate than Democrats, who have ACTUALLY reduced spending in the last twenty years, despite Republican claims to the opposite? It’s rather odd for someone to claim a source (mostly credible) the CBO says something, and then when told that it actually wasn’t said source, you want to start arguing about what the report may ‘mean’. I mean, you kinda lost that high ground from the get go, no? ---
**Author:** ![steronz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steronz/32/11765_2.png) [@steronz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/steronz)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2019, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/131 "2019-08-20T21:26:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Actually it’s more like we should vote for Democrats who are promising to massively increase spending because they don’t really mean it. > > It’s odd - right after I post cites that all the Democratic front-runners are going to increase spending, the Dope asserts that none of them will. > > It’s OK to admit that you don’t actually care about spending as long as Democrats are in charge, too, but Dopers are determined not to do it. > > Regards, > Shodan Would you rather have increased spending and a balanced budget, or flat spending a trillion dollar deficit? And you can’t say “neither,” those are the only two options in our current political climate. There’s a problem with large scale policy, in that at some level the small sample size leaves everything open to interpretation. So when Kansas implements Republican policies full-bore and suffers catastrophic budget shortfalls as a result, Republicans can just shrug and say whatever they want. “Sure things are bad, but they would have been _much worse_ if the Democrats were in charge.” “Yes, these specific Republicans didn’t do a good job, but the next batch I vote in will implement those same policies better, and we won’t have these problems.” Etc, etc. It’s a convenient way to ignore obvious conclusions. “Yes, we’ve elected Democrats in the past and they seem to have been better about being fiscally responsible, but these next generation of Democrats are going to blow up the budget! Just you wait!” ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/132 "2019-08-21T01:53:34Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > It’s rather odd for someone to claim a source (mostly credible) the CBO says something, and then when told that it actually wasn’t said source, you want to start arguing about what the report may ‘mean’. > > I mean, you kinda lost that high ground from the get go, no? The report explains the methodology and the sources from which the information was gathered, including the Congressional Budget Office. If you think there’s anything about it that’s factually incorrect, by all means say so. Personally, I’m amazed they could track trillions of dollars of Republican-caused debt and not even bother to mention Medicare Part D; another policy they passed with no attempt to pay for. ---
**Author:** ![Chisquirrel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6bbea6/32.png) [@Chisquirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chisquirrel)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/133 "2019-08-21T02:24:08Z")
> [@Kearsen1](#): > > It’s rather odd for someone to claim a source (mostly credible) the CBO says something, and then when told that it actually wasn’t said source, you want to start arguing about what the report may ‘mean’. > > I mean, you kinda lost that high ground from the get go, no? When did I quote anything from the CBO? Is your reading for comprehension on par with **Shodan**? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/134 "2019-08-21T13:17:14Z")
> [@steronz](#): > > Would you rather have increased spending and a balanced budget, or flat spending a trillion dollar deficit? I want a balanced budget, which will require decreased spending and increased taxation, at a ratio of about 2:1. > [@](#): > > And you can’t say “neither,” those are the only two options in our current political climate. Neither Democrats nor Republicans will accept either option. > [@](#): > > It’s a convenient way to ignore obvious conclusions. “Yes, we’ve elected Democrats in the past and they seem to have been better about being fiscally responsible, but these next generation of Democrats are going to blow up the budget! Just you wait!” The last two times the budget was balanced, Republicans controlled Congress. Which of the Democrats running for President in 2020 are going to decrease spending, and how and by how much? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/135 "2019-08-21T13:33:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The last two times the budget was balanced, Republicans controlled Congress. The Republican congresses of the late 1990s were constrained by a long-term plan put in place by Democrats in the early 1990s. As soon as Republicans held the presidency again, they got rid of the constraints and surpluses turned back into deficits. I think you said upthread that you find this unpersuasive. Would you care to elaborate on exactly why? ---
**Author:** ![Kearsen1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Kearsen1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kearsen1)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/136 "2019-08-21T13:36:15Z")
> [@Chisquirrel](#): > > When did I quote anything from the CBO? Is your reading for comprehension on par with **Shodan**? YOU did not, Quicksilver did (Which started this entire line of hot seat questions towards Shodan, you know the one you just participated in) When Shodan said “see above” I guess you never saw the above. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/137 "2019-08-21T13:52:39Z")
> [@XT](#): > > whose gore is getting oxed What does it mean when you invert the phrase “whose ox is gored”? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/138 "2019-08-21T14:21:47Z")
> [@Boycott](#): > > In line with Rush Limbaugh stating “nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore” recently, is it fair to suggest the Tea Party movement was never about the debt, fiscal conservatism is a myth and the GOP will do a total u-turn once a Democrat is in the Oval Office again? I’m not particularly well informed about the Tea Party movement in general (I thought Ted Cruz was a Tea Party member, but I was wrong), but your conclusion needs more support. Just because Rush Limbaugh says “nobody is a fiscal conservative anymore”, doesn’t mean Tea Party members _never_ cared about debt or fiscal conservatism. It is possible that the members have simply left Congress, thus the movement lost its significance. It is possible that Mr. Limbaugh is wrong. Presumably Mr. Limbaugh himself is still a fiscal conservative, and he meant “nobody” in a figurative sense, as if referring to some zeitgeist of fiscal conservatism. Ideally I would look at a list of current/former Tea Party members and their published opinions and voting record. Then we can look at the numbers and discuss whether the movement overall is comprised of hypocrites. The substantive debate would be whether an individual member is a hypocrite, based on their actions. That’s my opinion, anyways. I don’t see why we are talking about Democrats at all in this thread. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/139 "2019-08-21T14:56:30Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I don’t see why we are talking about Democrats at all in this thread. The suggestion is that when the Tea Party, and Republicans in general, say they want to lower the deficit, that it’s a misplaced or expedient way to attack Democrats, rather than a principle that they consistently uphold. As an explanation for the Tea Party’s silence now, it does seem relevant. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 21, 2019, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665/140 "2019-08-21T15:01:34Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > The Republican congresses of the late 1990s were constrained by a long-term plan put in place by Democrats in the early 1990s. As soon as Republicans held the presidency again, they got rid of the constraints and surpluses turned back into deficits. > > I think you said upthread that you find this unpersuasive. Would you care to elaborate on exactly why? I touched on this earlier. The budget deal to which I believe you are referring was an effort to get Bush 41 to break his “read my lips” pledge and raise taxes. It was an agreement by Democrats to raise taxes now, and cut spending later. (The “later” never happened.) Then Clinton was elected, and his first act was an attempt to increase the budget deficit by $16B based on his assertion that we were in a recession and needed the stimulus. (He was lying, as is probably not necessary to point out - we were not in recession.) The GOP was able to defeat this, although they were not in control of Congress. Then, some time later, the GOP regained control of Congress, and balanced the budget. Clinton vetoed this, but was overridden. (His budgets saw $200B deficits as far as the eye could see.) So, funnily enough, the long-term plan by Democrats didn’t balance the budget until after they lost control of Congress and the Democratic President’s vetoes were overridden. Then, as you say, Bush 43 took office, and the deficit reappeared. This was in response to the recession that resulted from 9/11 and the popping of the dot-com bubble. According to the logic, deficits are OK in a recession, except, apparently, unless a Republican is in the White House. And once the recession is over, the deficits should be reduced. Which they did, under Bush 43. But again, apparently that logic doesn’t work when a Republican is in the White House. And again, when the Bush era tax cuts were allegedly no longer needed, and the Democrats controlled Congress, and did not need to do anything to let the cuts expire - just sit still and let them. Yet that is not what the Democratically-controlled Congress did - they voted to extend them. See also the stuff about the “Republican policy” of the war in Afghanistan, which **Quicksilver** mischaracterized as coming from the CBO when it was actually Democratic spin. The war in Afghanistan was authorized with bipartisan support. Democrats later regained control of the White House and Congress, and voted to continue to fund it. Yet the spin is that it is all Republicans’ fault. That’s why it’s spin. So yes, “no matter what, it’s never the Democrats’s fault and the Obama tax cuts that no Republican voted for don’t count and all the Democratic front-runners have said explicitly they will increase spending but don’t believe them and vote for them because they won’t do what they say and the tax increases that won’t cover what they will spend will cover what they spend” is unpersuasive. Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/trump-has-added-4-trillion-to-the-national-debt-where-is-the-tea-party/838665.md?page=8)