How much did Donald Trump & Joe Biden add to the National Debt?

It's hard to believe than just more than a couple of decades ago, the federal national debt was a "mere" $5 trillion.

In the country's history with debt, the US did not hit the $1 trillion mark until the Reagan administration.

When George W. Bush took office in 2001, the national debt was $5 trillion. After eight years of GWB, the debt skyrocketed to $10 trillion.

Then came Barack Obama and eight more years of overspending, printing and borrowing, the debt again doubled from $10 trillion to approximately $20 trillion.

Then came Donald Trump. And now I turn to a tweet by a self-proclaimed Real Estate Investor, Soccer Dad, Political Activist (mostly acting against Trump), and I quote:

"Trump added over $7 trillion in new debt, whereas Biden added under a trillion."

Is this accurate, or is this nonsense?

Well the first part is true and the second part is quite false.

Let's look at the first part--Over the course of President Trump’s four years in office, the gross national debt grew from $19.95 trillion to $27.75 trillion – a $7.8 trillion increase.

Now the second part. If Joe Biden entered the White House with a debt baseline of $27.75 trillion, and the current debt as of one minute ago is $34.58 trillion, I'm sorry Mr. Tweeter, that is much more than "under a trillion".

Simple arithmetic shows that as of now, $6.83 trillion in debt has been accumulated under the Biden administration...and there is approximately 8 months left in his first term.

According to a CNBC analysis/report in March, The debt load of the U.S. is growing at a quicker clip in recent months, increasing about $1 trillion nearly every 100 days.

You do the math.

Regardless, we are moving rapidly in a very dangerous direction, something I say really started during the Bush/Alan Greenspan years and is not showing any sign of slowing down.

Related:

Why do we listen to the Fed and most economists?


Is Joe Biden telling the truth? Claims inflation was at 9% when he came into office

Molly Jong-Fast mocks Trump about comparing himself to FDR. The question is, Who shredded the Constitution?

Special correspondent at Vanity Fair, Molly Jong-Fast was on MSNBC's Way Too Early last Monday (starting around the 33:00 mark) and while chatting with host, Jonathan Lemire she said concerning a recent Trump speech at the NRA:

"...I'm your gun President, I do these things these things that are considered very based. I think at the fact that he keeps toying at this idea that he's going to stay for a third term, he's telling us what he's going to do if he gets in office and he's going to shred the Constitution, that's clearly what's happening here.

Image/Video Screen Shot

"I do love how he compared himself to FDR, that is a bit of a stretch."

This is what I want to discuss...what makes Jong-Fast such a useless guest is she knows very little and brings little to the table. Shred the Constitution she said.

FDR is a sacred cow for both most Republicans and leftists like Jong-Fast. He is typically ranked in the top 3 presidents of all time. But let's look at what FDR did during his 4 terms concerning shredding the Constitution and the expansion of the federal government:

FDR exacerbated and prolonged the Great Depression, while in the process enlarging government bureaucracy and creating welfare programs that haunt us 80 years later.

During the New Deal in the 1930s, federal intervention in the marketplace expanded to include heavy government involvement in retirement and unemployment payments, labor-management relations, wages, hours and working conditions, securities and investments and regulation of radio broadcasting, agriculture, trucking, airlines, oil and coal.

The National Industrial Recovery Act, the Agricultural Adjustment Act were only the beginning. The New Deal was a series of expensive experiments that wasted billions of dollars at a time when we didn't have much money to spare.

Then there was the SEC, CCC, WPA, PWA and CWA and more redundant, and I say unconstitutional agencies cropped up. Over his tenure, FDR created 65 new federal agencies to provide public works, subsidies for banks, loans for homes, farm credit and more.

The list is very extensive.

Federal employment increased by a factor of five.

Should We Really Choose The Economic Policies Of Hoover/FDR Over Those Of Warren Harding To Get Out The Recession?

He tried unsuccessfully to pack the Supreme Court so he could get even more government intervention passed.

He expanded presidential power to something not seen before.

He had no real interest in civil rights.

One of the most vile things was he issued an executive order that threw 70,000 Japanese Americans and thousands of resident aliens into prison camps.

There was censorship and full out banning of radio programs and newspapers.

His economic policies extended the Great Depression by at least 8 years according to researchers.

On April 5, 1933, FDR told Americans—in the form of Executive Order 6102—that they had less than a month to hand over their gold coins, bullion and gold certificates or face up to ten years in prison or a fine of $10,000, or both.

He maintained a sneaky and aggressive foreign policy prior to WWII. At a time when 70% of Americans wanted military restraint overseas. He made many moves prior to the war to get us involved.

There is so much detail, too much for a blog post to cover everything FDR did that honest men and woman would consider "shredding the Constitution".

For Jong-Fast to say Trump comparing himself to FDR was a bit of a stretch is so true.

Trump didn't even come close to the damage FDR caused to the executive, the economy and the meaning of the Constitution.

James Carville claims Donald Trump has Syphilis--We've been down this road before

Former Bill Clinton campaign manager, 79-year-old James Carville, during a talk on Politicon, pulled an old rabbit out of his hat--he accused Trump of having/covering up his syphilis.

Carville said concerning some missing medical records, “Those records will contain the fact that he had syphilis."

On January 17, Trump faced similar speculation from Carville after a photo showed his hands covered in red marks.

Carville cited a number of medical doctors who he said had confirmed to him the marks were a sign of "secondary syphilis."

Sound familiar?

It was speculated about by a physician in 2017 in an article published in the New Republic. The smear piece by an infectious disease physician named Dr. Steven Beutler suggested that then President Donald Trump’s so-called "bizarre" behavior may be due to neurosyphilis.

Beutler admitted his diagnosis is not conclusive (duh?).

Does Trump suffer from this condition? I cannot, of course, establish this diagnosis from a distance. There’s a great deal of information I don’t have access to, which could be critical in reaching the correct conclusion. In Trump’s case, there are many diagnostic possibilities, and we have very little background information because the slim medical summary he released was vague, unverifiable, and possibly outdated.

He later in the article discusses Trump’s past sexual history that also leads him to his unsubstantiated theory.

Really? Is this what a medical professional should be writing about in any publication? One has to ask, what are Dr. Beutler’s motives?

I suspect the same as James Carville's.

As is Dr Agnes Wold. The prominent physician and bacteriologist from Sweden tweeted something to the same effect in 2018. Wold tweeted in response to a Trump tweet referencing himself as a “stable genius”- “Wow! Can we make a guess at late-stage syphilis?” (Translated). Dr Wold later noted she was just joking.

Dr. Art Caplan from the NYU Langone Medical Center’s Division of Medical Ethics said in 2016:

No one should be diagnosing anyone that they haven’t examined. It isn’t right to do it for presidential candidates, and it’s not right to do it for anybody else. You’re basically speculating about information that you don’t have—information that is incomplete. You don’t know the patient’s history. You haven’t tested them. You haven’t talked to them. You don’t have any relationship with them over time. You’re just looking at instances of how they behave or what you see on news clips and other places.

It is just wrong to ever diagnose someone from a distance. Part of the problem with doing that is that you are trying to pretend that you can impute information or make assessments that really aren’t there. We don’t want to turn medicine into some version of psychic phenomena where you can tell how ill or healthy somebody is without actually seeing them.

Cheap and unsubstantiated by Carville, Beutler and Wold all around.

Is Joe Biden telling the truth? Claims inflation was at 9% when he came into office

Whether it's uncles getting eaten by cannibals or claims he was a truck driver, Joe Biden often enough embellishes or outright lies on issues far and wide.

The latest of several came last week in an interview with CNN's Erin Burnett.

Biden said during the interview, “No president has had the run we’ve had in terms of creating jobs and bringing down inflation, It was 9% when I came to office — 9%".

The truth is, inflation was a mere 1.4% in January 2021 when he entered the White House.

Either Mr. Biden is blatantly lying or he is totally clueless about the situation. You can be the judge.

The other big question is, why didn't Erin Burnett challenge him on this and several claims he made during the 15 minute or so interview?

Abortion is healthcare?

The Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities wrote in 2023:

In recent years pro-abortion groups have radically altered their messaging strategy, abandoning the slogan of “choice” to claim instead that abortion is simply essential health care for women. References to abortion or abortion “services” have been replaced in pro-abortion literature by the euphemism “abortion care.” By claiming an objective basis in medicine, abortion supporters seek to marginalize health care providers and others who disagree with them, dismissing these Americans as not living up to “the standard of care.” 

That leads me to a tweet by the immediate past president of the American Medical Association (AMA) and dermatologist (responding to an article about abortion and medical residents):

Thank you,

@jrovner

and

@rachanadpradhan

, for this story, for interviewing me, and for drawing attention to this predictable downstream consequence of reckless government interference in healthcare, including abortions.

As noted in the first paragraph, pro-abortion advocates, like leftist advocates of all types, have done this incredible job at redefining terms.

So what are the reasons women choose abortion?

The most recent available data is from eight states that collect and report women’s reasons for choosing abortion, which accounts for approximately 122,000 abortions each year, 13% of the U.S. total shows the following:

• Rape and incest: 0.3%
• Risk to the woman’s life or a major bodily function: 0.2%
• Other physical health concerns: 2.5%
• Abnormality in the unborn baby: 1.3%
• Elective and unspecified reasons: 95.7%

So we see that less than 5% are actually due health reasons. The remaining 96% is essentially birth control.

I don't know why reporters don't ask the pro-abortion politicians and advocates, who use risk to the woman's life as the crux of their arguments, about the 96% of elective abortions performed annually.

Abortion is not health care. Abortion is an act of violence against someone who could be a physician’s patient.

Ted Lieu's dishonest embryo tweet

‘Abortion access journalist' skirts answering CSPAN viewer's question about surgical techniques

Why do we listen to the Fed and most economists?

In July 2020, a CNBC article entitled, Here’s why economists don’t expect trillions of dollars in economic stimulus to create inflation.

The article says: the latest projections from Federal Reserve policymakers show inflation will stay below the central bank’s 2% target over the next two years.

It also includes statements from three economists.

In the words of Homer Simpson...D'oh!!

The fact that the economist's at the Fed and the economists in the article made this prediction after trillions of dollars, out of thin air, flooded the economy is nothing short of astounding.

The average annual rate in the United States was 1.3% in 2020, the year this article and the predictions were made, only to be followed with an inflation rate of 4.7% in 2021 and 8.0% in 2022.

Why anyone listens to these people behooves me to no end.

How can all these economists not know this fact--economy-wide price increases are always the result of the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies. Inflation is actually the act of money-creation by the central bank. Widespread price increases are a symptom, not a cause, of inflation.

Is our current government the exact form of government that our Constitution called for?

This came from a tweet from popular left-wing influencer, Ed Krassenstein earlier this week.

Krassenstein was responding to right-wing influencer, Charlie Kirk’s tweet that said, We are living under a form of government that the Constitution was explicitly formed to prevent.

So let’s answer the second part of Krassenstein’s tweet: Am I missing something?

Well, put simply, yes.

Presidential power

Let’s start with Article II, Section 2. This outlines the few powers given to the President, and they are few:

He/she is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States…

He/she is not the Commander in Chief of the country, the economy or anything other that the military. He/she leads the war making after the Congress declares war. He/she does not start wars.

The last time we got into a war per the Constitution’s prescription was during World War II (June 4, 1942- Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania).

Nothing since then—Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and every other smaller conflict in between were not declared by the Congress.

In addition, making treaties and appointing judges are on this short list.

Constitution Owner's Manual: The Real Constitution Politicians Don't Want You to Know About

This is nothing like the reality of the past number of decades, where the President is treated like and acts like has virtually unlimited authority over most aspects of American government.

I believe, the framers designed the Constitution to give the most powers to the Legislative branch. Article I is the longest part of the Constitution. That’s because the Founding generation thought that Congress would be the most powerful—and most dangerous—branch of government.

Bill of Rights

The First and Second Amendment, the amendments most of the public are most aware of, are constantly under attack.

But their two others that are destroyed or literally ignored, and they are critical. That’s Fourth and the Tenth Amendments.

Passed way too quickly without being read or debated, the Fourth Amendment took it on the chin with the Patriot Act, feverishly favored by politicians left and right.

It states: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The ACLU writes: the Patriot Act was the first of many changes to surveillance laws that made it easier for the government to spy on ordinary Americans by expanding the authority to monitor phone and email communications, collect bank and credit reporting records, and track the activity of innocent Americans on the Internet. While most Americans think it was created to catch terrorists, the Patriot Act actually turns regular citizens into suspects.

Totally contrary to the Fourth Amendment.

Then their is the Tenth Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Has there been an amendment more ignored than this one? Is it even taught in law school anymore?

The Tenth Amendment makes explicit two fundamental constitutional principles that are implicit in the document itself.

1. The federal government is only authorized to exercise those powers delegated to it.

2. The people of the several states retain the authority to exercise any power that is not delegated to the federal government as long as the Constitution doesn’t expressly prohibit it.

Do you see why I say it’s ignored, and has been for decades?

The federal government literally has their hands in everything. instead of the specific, very limited number of things it is authorized to do which are listed throughout the document.

So, I pointed out three things- the excessively unconstitutional powers the Preseident wield today, the destruction of the Fourth Amendment and the ignored Tenth Amendment.

I could really continue on and on, but I’ll stop here.

Does this answer your question Ed?