[willcipriano]

There was what? 5 years in the past 50 that there wasn't a deficit?

Those 5 years were when the internet went mainstream and lifetime welfare was ended.

The rest of the time is occupied by bipartisan wars that we couldn't afford and lost anyway.

[piva00]

> The rest of the time is occupied by bipartisan wars that we couldn't afford and lost anyway.

Started by Bush I and Bush II.

> There was what? 5 years in the past 50 that there wasn't a deficit?

My observation was in the rate of change of the deficit, generally since the 80s Democrats seem to work for lowering the budget deficit while Republicans increase it. Which is quite absurd given the demagogy coming from the GOP about public spending, "welfare queens", austerity and so on, they are mostly the ones responsible for pushing future administrations (and generations) the burdens of their overspending.

[willcipriano]

> Started by Bush I and Bush II.

Bush started Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan?

And, better yet, then kept the wars up, for decades, despite several democratic majorities and no longer being in power himself?

Let me guess he also made them abandon the Bagram air base without any planning as well? Bush made them leave the humvees for the Taliban to use.

> GOP about public spending, "welfare queens", austerity and so on,

The only time the Democrats balanced the budget was the time they ended welfare queens and were tough on illegal immigration. Clinton from the 90's would be considered conservative today.

[piva00]

> Bush started Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan?

I thought you were talking about prolonged wars that drained the coffers like Afghanistan and Iraq requiring massive deployments of personnel and equipment. Your examples are not even in the same order of magnitude of spending (and probably not even if all are combined but it's hard to find figures on spending related to them directly). Also not comparable on the amount of human suffering caused by the US government compared to Iraq/Afghanistan.

> The only time the Democrats balanced the budget was the time they ended welfare queens and were tough on illegal immigration. Clinton from the 90's would be considered conservative today.

I don't think this is a point to what I said, if it worked for the Democrats then why the GOP with an even stronger rhetoric against welfare and immigrants cannot achieve lowering the deficit and, as the facts show, increase it every single time? Something about their policies and ideology doesn't help the budget, it's empirical.

> Let me guess he also made them abandon the Bagram air base without any planning as well? Bush made them leave the humvees for the Taliban to use.

Well, not Bush but definitely another Republican president:

> In February 2020, the Trump administration and the Taliban signed the United States–Taliban deal in Doha, Qatar, which stipulated fighting restrictions for both the US and the Taliban, and provided for the withdrawal of all NATO forces from Afghanistan in return for the Taliban's counter-terrorism commitments. The deal, and then the Biden administration's final decision in April 2021 to pull out all US troops by September 2021 without leaving a residual force, were the two critical events that triggered the start of the collapse of the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF).

[willcipriano]

Obama was in Afghanistan longer than W. All 8 years vs what 6.5 for Bush? War is bipartisan. Who do you vote for if you object to the current wars for example? Who should you of voted for if you objected to any of the previous ones? The majority of the duration of these wars they lacked popular support, the vote to end them wasn't provided as an option.[0]

> GOP with an even stronger rhetoric...

I look at action over words.

Under Bush illegal immigration was higher than Obama. Understanding Bush and Republicans of the time "pro business" mantra of the era that makes sense, businesses wanted to pay lower wages. Bush helped them out.

Obama needed to show economic recovery, particularly among the working poor, similar to how Clinton wanted to. So he built the 'kid cages'/youth detention facilities (name changes depending on who is in office) and enforced the immigration laws. This decreased the supply of labor available and allowed workers to catch up after 2008. As workers catch up they buy goods and services, this expands the economy and thus lowers deficit to GDP ratios.

[0] until Trump apparently. I'd credit Biden for the Afgan withdrawal but he refuses to accept it (like you have done in your comment here). Overall a disaster of a pull out is better than continuing a disaster of a war, for me whoever takes blame for one also deserves the credit for the other. He also is the first guy in my adult life to not start any new wars. I'd put together a version of the above deficit chart but with wars started by administration but I think you agree this comment has gone on long enough.

[piva00]

> Under Bush illegal immigration was higher than Obama. Understanding Bush and Republicans of the time "pro business" mantra of the era that makes sense, businesses wanted to pay lower wages. Bush helped them out.

I don't see either of the parties in the USA having much difference in ideology about being pro-business, one is just more corrupt about it but both are pretty right-wing in the pro-business ideology. One just tries to pay lip service to the idea of being more socially-conscious but in the business arena it's just that, lip service.

> Obama was in Afghanistan longer than W. All 8 years vs what 6.5 for Bush? War is bipartisan. Who do you vote for if you object to the current wars for example? Who should you of voted for if you objected to any of the previous ones? The majority of the duration of these wars they lacked popular support, the vote to end them wasn't provided as an option.[0]

Completely agree, war is just another business for the USA.

Overall as an outsider the political landscape of the USA is a mess and pretty much undemocratic, two parties cannot ever represent the different interests of 340+ million citizens across a landmass spanning a continent. Since both parties are in cahoots with the military industry it doesn't really matter what citizens want or think about it, there's no other option, both will support it.

[IggleSniggle]

I think when they made that comment they were talking about the rate of change, ie, whether % of GDP is trending upwards or downwards, not specifically looking at the Clinton administration.

[willcipriano]

If you want to dig further into it GDP is adjusted by the GDP deflator and that is lower than CPI.

Due to (intentional) methodological flaws like hedonic quality adjustment, owner imputed rent and a basket of good arrived at by a team of economists rather than surveys of what households are actually buying, CPI is lower than what a household needs to increase its budget by in order to stay afloat, it's lower than inflation.

Therefore if the government engaged in deficit spending and that spending resulted inflation that would result in a better percentage of GDP than expected as a lot of the "growth" is just dollars becoming less valuable.