__________
Using absolute $$ of deficits or anything other than percentages of increase of debt to concurrent period's GDP is nonsensical and is a case of Denominator Blindness Effect (aka ratio bias).
For example, in www.us-debt-clock.com - U.S. National Debt by President, from 1897 **:
Using $$ will obviously heavily skew the highest numbers to recent years, due to cumulative inflation... but highest %%, by far, was by FDR in 1930s Great Depression.
** Presidents share fiscal authority with Congress, and totals are affected by inherited budgets, recessions, wars, emergencies, tax policy, and interest costs.
#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-09-30 05:32 PM
Tell us: what happened to that surplus?
1. Ah, the "good old days" of gov't shutdowns and CRs... When Clinton lost Congress in 1994, he proclaimed "The era of big government is over!", then vetoed the "spending cuts + lower tax rates" balanced budget in 1995. The consequent CRs severely cut down spending (to 1.3% of GDP in 1996 and 0.3% in 1997)...
2. ... as we entered the era of "irrational exuberance" (Fed Chair Alan Greenspan in 1996) leading up to Internet Bubble and much higher government revenues from capital gains.
3. Finally, in 1997, Clinton-Gingrich-Lott budget deal cut both tax rates and spending, for $204B net spending cuts, including $77B from defense and $61B nondefense discretionary savings due to "peace dividend" :
(budgetcounsel.com (page 5) - Bipartisan Budget Agreement May 15, 1997 - PDF)
Nominal budget surpluses "under Clinton+GOP Congress" (real debt was still increasing, due to SS borrowing and off-budget items) started immediately, in fiscal 1998 and continued into fiscal 2001, when the US had to start dealing with the aftermath of both 2000 horrible burst bubble recession and 9/11.
BTW, after deficit rising to 1.4%, 3.3%, 3.4% of GDP in fiscal 2002-2004 (9/11 + Afghanistan + Iraq wars) it dropped to 2.4%, 1.8%, 1.1% in 2005-2007, and only rose to 3.1% in 2008 and 9.8% in 2009 as a result of GFC's market meltdown / tax revenues collapse and necessary Ben Bernanke'a liquidity injection plan (TARP), including $750B+ TARP loans, which were paid back to Treasury (with interest) by the banks "under Obama", so he was credited with that "revenue."
Obama, similar to Clinton, acknowledged "shellacking" after 2010 elections, when his 2010-2011 budgets failed to cut the deficits, but eventually agreed to spending and tax rates cuts, in 2012.
Obama's (and GOP Congress from fiscal 2012) deficits in fiscal 2010-2017:
8.6%, (GFC) 8.3%, 6.6%, 4.0%, 2.8%, 2.4%, 3.1%, 3.4% (8yrs = 39.2% of GDP)
Bush-43 deficits in fiscal 2002-2009:
1.4%(bubble burst + 9/11), 3.3%, 3.4%, 2.4%, 1.8%, 1.1%, 3.1%, 9.8%/GFC (8yrs = 26.3% of GDP)
These are truly comparable numbers.
In 1964 LBJ signed into law so-called "Kennedy-Johnson" Tax Reduction Act, the largest tax cut in U.S. history until 1981 - to stimulate the sluggish economy ("taxes... drag on economy, private sector") - yet in fiscal 1965 and 1966 tax revenues increased.
www.cambridge.org - The Kennedy " Johnson Tax Cut of 1964, the Defeat of Keynes, and Comprehensive Tax Reform in the United States.
www.coolidgereview.com - JFK Tax Cut ***
__________
__________
#3 | Posted by Zed at 2026-10-03 02:56 PM
If Florida goes Blue this cycle this rich guy is going to wonder what happened to him.
#4 | Posted by Zed at 2026-10-03 02:58 PM
A billionaire leaving a State simply means that he is giving the burden of running the State to the poor and middle class.
.
Some blue states' politicians understand that - despite populist tendencies of their base - higher taxation can cause capital flight and long-term loss of tax base, jobs and economic growth, which they will then have to stimulate with either higher spending or "targeted" tax breaks for favored groups/industries :
calmatters.org - California Democrats defy Newsom, back billionaire tax - 2026-08-05
|------- California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, opposes the billionaire tax on voters' ballots this November. So does Xavier Becerra, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate widely favored to succeed him. ...
Proposition 40 would generate an estimated $100 billion by levying a one-time 5% tax on the state's more than 200 billionaires...
The idea has sparked controversy ... prompting tech billionaires like Google co-founder Sergey Brin to move his business holdings out-of-state ... [Larry Page moved to FL in December 2025 - that's more than $500B of potential tax base just between these two "globalists"]
In addition to Newsom and Becerra, doctors' and primary care providers' associations oppose the billionaire tax, along with a variety of Democratic-aligned political powerhouses like Planned Parenthood. Several labor unions are opposed.
Opponents worry the tax would drive the wealthy out of the state, depriving California of both income tax revenue and spending. ...
The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimates it could reduce long-term state revenue. ...
The No campaign downplayed the party's endorsement, pointing to the party's 2024 opposition to Prop. 36, a crime measure which nonetheless passed overwhelmingly, and its support for Prop. 32, a minimum wage hike which failed.
Newsom, Becerra, CTA, California Professional Firefighters, Planned Parenthood and others are against Prop. 40 "because it's bad for our budget, bad for our economy, and bad for our future," the campaign said in a statement. ...
-------|
davidrhenderson.substack.com - Most European Countries that Had Wealth Taxes Have Repealed Them - 2026-08-31
taxfoundation.org - The High Cost of Wealth Taxes | Many developed countries have repealed their net wealth taxes in recent years - June 2024 [PDF, 18pgs]
Just like tariffs on "other countries", excessively higher "taxes on the rich" ultimately backfire and trickle down to the middle and lower quintiles, in forms of higher prices, fewer well-paying jobs and economic opportunities and increased burdens on the government/taxpayers.
__________