Connect with us

Latest

News

US President Trump decreases US Debt by more than $100 Billion

This will not be shared by CNN, the Failing NYT or the Washington Post.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

8,183 Views

For all the bad press (and fake news) heaped on US President Trump by the liberal left mainstream media, important fiscal discipline is starting to seep through the massive spending made from deep within the DC swamp.

President Trump has cut more US Federal debt for a longer period of time than any US President in history.

Via The Gateway Pundit

When President Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017 the amount of US Federal Debt owed both externally and internally was over $19 Trillion at $19,947,304,555,212.

As of August 17th the amount of US Debt had decreased by more than $100 Billion to $19,845,188,460,167.

No President in US history has ever cut the amount of US Debt by this amount and no President has resided over a debt cut like this ever. 

History buffs may say that this is incorrect because President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush oversaw US Debt cuts over a period of a few years after the Republican Congress led by House Speaker Newt Gingrich forced Clinton into signing a balanced budget.  We thought the same, but our analysis determined that this is actually not correct.

The Gateway Pundit notes that Congress did push Clinton into signing a balanced budget but the amount of US debt during this period actually increased. This is confirmed through data maintained by the US Treasury at Treasurydirect.gov.

The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) has performed audits since 1997 of the US Debt amounts outstanding. In their analysis they show that when accounting for US Debt Held by the Public and US Intergovernmental Debt Holdings, the amount of US Debt has increased every year since their audits began.

Via The Gateway Pundit

The amount of US Debt Held by the Public decreased each year from 1999, 2000 and 2001 but the amount Intergovernmental Debt Holdings increased at larger amounts during this period.

The Treasury website does provide daily amounts of debt outstanding but this reporting only goes back to March 31, 2005. The Treasury does provide monthly amounts outstanding back through September 30, 2001 and annual amounts back through 1997.  The audited financial statement show the increase in US Debt annually from 1997 through 2016.

We know that no President has reduced the amount of US Debt for a longer period of time because no President has reduced the amount of US Debt since 1997.

A review of the amount of (unaudited) of US Debt outstanding back through the Civil War shows that the last time the US Federal Government had a debt decrease between years was when Republican Eisenhower was President in 1957 and 1958.  He cut the amount of US Debt by $2 Billion each year from $274 Billion in 1956 to $273 Billion in 1957 and again to $271 Billion in 1958.

No President besides President Donald Trump has cut the amount of US Debt by $100 Billion ever.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement
23 Comments

23
Leave a Reply

avatar
13 Comment threads
10 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
K.P.ShahnaCJ SimonAndy MasakiVera Gottlieb Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Daisy Adler
Guest
Daisy Adler

A drop in the bucket of $20,000 billion debt.

Popart 2015
Guest
Popart 2015

As soon as NK war starts as soon that debt will skyrocketing!

foxenburg
Guest
foxenburg

You say Trump cut the debt. What did he do to achieve this?

Shahna
Guest

He hasn’t.
Just look at the debt clock.

And check out the unfunded liabilities while you’re there… (WOW)

Seán Murphy
Guest
Seán Murphy

100 billion seems a lot, but off a deficit of nearly 21 trillion it’s not a lot.

Shahna
Guest

Not even a percent – AND the Debt Clock says otherwise.
Fluff for the American sheeple.

Shahna
Guest

No President besides President Donald Trump has cut the amount of US Debt by $100 Billion ever.
—————
How many Tomahawks missiles is that?

Shahna
Guest

You sure someone isn’t pulling your leg?

US debt clock says $19,972,971,XXX,XXX
(Them X’s are changing too fast to call ’em numbers.)

Shahna
Guest

And between that post and this one it went UP by $1 million…..

tiredofthemedialies
Guest
tiredofthemedialies

That’s a tiny ammount. The per-annum interest on the debt is more than that.

Shahna
Guest

Interest is $1 billion PER DAY.

RobertX5
Guest
RobertX5

Is the Duran not aware of the rules pertaining to the debt limit. In Oct 15 the limit was suspended but was to be reintroduced in Much 17 at whatever the debt was, turned out to be a shade under 20 trillion. The treasury announced the introduction of emergency measures to delay default which is expected to keep things going till Nov. At that time if a new limit is not agreed the gov will stop paying certain bills. If a new limit is agreed the debt will lurch upwards as the emergency measures unwind..

Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

How was this accomplished? I know Americans love to fib with their figures when it is a matter of looking good.

Shahna
Guest
Vera Gottlieb
Guest
Vera Gottlieb

Thanks but I still don’t see it. Fibbing with figures…an old trick.

CJ Simon
Guest
CJ Simon

http://www.usdebtclock.org is just a program running on autopilot. It does not reflect the actual debt accurately. If you look at other clocks that update weekly you will see that the current debt is approx. $19,861,737,662,637. The usdebtclock.org is off by almost 115 billion. That makes Trump one of the greatest Presidents fiscally in my lifetime.

Shahna
Guest

Good luck.
The difference between $19.9T and $19.8T seems a little more … academic … to me. BTW. What gives you the idea that that one is more accurate than this one or vice versa?

115 billion …. what’s your military budget again?
So what’s 115B – 6 weeks in Afghanistan?
Time flies.

K.P.
Guest
K.P.

Not even close. You’re thanking the wrong man. It’s courtesy of Obama. However, provide me with proof on your claim and we’ll see.

Shahna
Guest

“As of August 17th the amount of US Debt had decreased by more than $100 Billion to $19,845,188,460,167.”

and in the last four (4) days it climbed up to $19,973,015,599,010…..??
Yah sure.
————————–
Fluff for the sheeple!
Support Trump – he’s bringing down the debt. Just ANOTHER Yankee lie.

Andy Masaki
Guest

It is true that there has been a more than $100 billion decrease in overall debt. So, is it really a credit going to Mr. Trump? Or we the citizen of US should take the credit? For those who don’t know, you can issue a check payable to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service stated as a gift to reduce public debt. Who knows what happened behind the curtains!!

CJ Simon
Guest
CJ Simon

For those of you who keep referring to http://www.usdebtclock.org:
http://www.usdebtclock.org is just a program running on autopilot. It does not reflect the actual debt accurately. If you look at other clocks that update weekly you will see that the current debt is approx. $19,861,737,662,637. The usdebtclock.org is off by almost 115 billion. That makes Trump one of the greatest Presidents fiscally in my lifetime.

K.P.
Guest
K.P.

No it doesn’t. If you keep copying and pasting the same stuff I’m gonna start suspecting you’re a paid troll.

K.P.
Guest
K.P.

I actually researched on this when somebody mentioned it. That decrease is courtesy of President Obama (if you looked you could see Obama decreased the amount each year, something you won’t see on the failing Washington Times, fake Fox “News” or the Gateway Pundit.) Not only can you tell from the chart but Trump didn’t sign any significant piece of legislative until later in the year so how can he get credit for something he didn’t do? Come on now!
However, he has added $1.4 (and growing) trillion to the deficit.

Latest

Honest liberal says he is NOT INTERESTED in policy explanation [Video]

When news anchors try to act like prosecuting attorneys instead of actually interviewing people, we all lose.

Seraphim Hanisch

Published

on

One characteristic of modern-day television “news reporting” is that the political news is not truly reported. Rather, if the interviewer disagrees with the one being interviewed, the session turns into interviewer grandstanding. Regrettably, this tactic is used by liberal and conservative journalists alike. However, it is usually not admitted, as the interviewer usually chooses to say things like “I want the truth” when he or she really wants to force the other person to admit the correctness of the interviewer.

Over the weekend, Fox News’ Chris Wallace grandstanded against White House Senior Policy Adviser Stephen Miller. However, Chris Wallace at least was honest about his wish:

STEPHEN MILLER: … At a fundamental level, we could go down into the details, and you know, Chris, I can go down into details as much as you want to, but the bottom line is this…

CHRIS WALLACE: Please don’t! (laughs)

This is a big problem. The responsibility of any good journalist is to get full and accurate information about a given topic. Isn’t it?

Not in the press of our day. Chris Wallace is a valued personality for the Fox News Channel. As a former CBS anchor for 60 Minutes, Wallace brings a well-known face and voice of the mainstream media to Fox, even though he is quite liberal politically, as are many in the entertainment and information professions.

The problem is that the topic here, the facts justifying President Trump’s National Emergency declaration on Friday over the still permeable US-Mexico border, are present in abundance. But Mr. Wallace did not want to know these facts, or perhaps worse, he did not want to let his viewing audience know this information, so he tried to prevent Mr. Miller from talking about those details.

Stephen Miller, thankfully, was not having it. He insisted on giving a full and informed response to Mr. Wallace’s questions, even though Wallace did not want to hear any information.

The rest of the interview is comprised of Mr. Miller trying to dissemimate information and Mr. Wallace trying to block it and refuse it in order to sustain his own preferred narrative.

Chris Wallace’ point of view is that the President called a National Emergency for no good reason, and that President Trump is breaking the law by appropriating money for the Border Wall, something which only the House of Representatives can do, legislatively.

However, the point of view expressed by Mr. Wallace and President Trump is that as Chief Executive of the United States of America, the President is responsible to preserve the country from invasion. For the President, the never-ending waves of illegals coming into the country and not being deported, but rather, released into the US pending trials that they often never attend years later, amounts to a slow invasion.

Strictly speaking, President Trump is correct. The illegals are not (usually) armed representatives of a foreign power, but neither do they become American citizens. Many of them take advantage of generous provisions and loopholes in the law (Mexico teaches them how to do this!) and they therefore earn money but usurp the country of resources.

It has been exceedingly difficult to move the level of interest in stopping illegal immigration in the US. Rush Limbaugh rightly stated in his program on Friday, February 15, what the problem is, and we include some of the details (as we should) for why Mr. Limbaugh says what he says here:

There is a limit on a number of detainees. There is limit on how much of border and fence can be built. There’s a limit on what kind can be built. There’s a limit on modernization. This bill is filled with congressional edicts telling the president of the United States what he cannot do. Now, it authorizes $23 billion for Homeland Security, but it specifies $1.375 billion for fencing and bordering.

But there are so many limits on this as to make this practically irrelevant — by design and on purpose, because I firmly believe that what members of Congress (both parties) actually want with this bill is to send a message that nothing is ever gonna happen as long as Donald Trump is President. The attempt in this budget deal is to send a message to you Trump voters that it’s worthless voting for him, that it is a waste of time supporting him, because they are demonstrating that he can’t get anything done.

This is Pelosi in the House and Schumer in the Senate getting together, because they know when it comes to illegal immigration, these parties are unified, folks. For the most part, the Republicans and Democrats are for open borders. There are exceptions on the Republican side. But there are a lot of Republicans that don’t want Trump to succeed even now. There are a lot of Republicans just after he was inaugurated who don’t want him to succeed. So they come up with a piece of legislation here that is outrageous.

It is outrageous in its denial of the existence of a genuine emergency at the border. They don’t care. They will deal with whatever mess they create. They don’t care how bad it gets because in their world, the only mess is Donald Trump — and since the Russian effort and the Mueller effort and everything else related to that has failed to get his approval numbers down (and that has been the objective from the get-go), this is the latest effort, and it won’t be long… You mark my words on this.

There is an emergency at the US-Mexico border. Last year almost half a million people were apprehended by the Border Patrol and ICE. Many, if not most, though, are still in the United States. They were not all sent back. Some were, and some of them probably have come back in yet again. The fact that our nation’s borders are unrestricted in this manner is absolute folly.

The more American people know the details about what is actually happening at the border, the more they support the wall’s construction and President Trump’s policies. We have seen evidence for this in polling even by liberal network outlets. President Trump managed to call attention to this topic and bring it into the center of the discussion of US domestic policy. Rasmussen reported that the level of approval of Trump’s work to close the border is high – at 59 percent, with only 33 percent disapproving.

The President made this an issue. Chris Wallace tried in his own program to deflect and dissuade information from being brought to the attention of the American viewers who watch his program.

This is not journalism. It is reinforcement of propaganda on Mr. Wallace’s part, defense against facts, and an unwillingness to let the American people have information and therefore to think for themselves.

Unfortunately, such practices are not limited to Mr. Wallace. Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and others all utilize this form of questioning, and it is a shame, because the news reporter no longer reports the news. When a talking head on TV or radio places himself or herself as the Gatekeeper to allow or prevent information from reaching the American people, this is highly presumptuous, ego driven and almost always, dishonest.

Worse, such an approach reinforces this message to American people: “You cannot think for yourself. It is too hard, so we will do your thinking for you. Trust us!”

This style of journalism became more and more popular over, under the “appearance” of “tough questioning.” However the usual course of “tough questioning” is ideologically aligned with whatever the journalist thinks, and not at all about what is actually important. Chris Wallace is notorious for doing this with conservatives, and he does aggravate them, but he reduces interviews to an argument between the journalist and the person interviewed.

And usually, this is not the story. This was made absolutely clear in the interview with Stephen Miller, even to the point that Mr. Wallace actually voiced the request, “please don’t (give us all the specifics of this issue.)” 

Good journalism respects the fact that different people have different points of view. Agreement or disagreement with these points is what Op-Ed writing is for. But when Op-Ed is treated as hard fact journalism, we all lose.

We included the whole interview video from the beginning here so that the viewer can take in the whole course of this discussion. It is well worth watching. And as it is well-worth watching, it is also well-worth each person’s own personal consideration. People are smarter than the media would like us to be.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

Macron pisses off Merkel as he tries to sabotage Nord Stream 2 pipeline (Video)

The Duran – News in Review – Episode 177.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss an EU compromise for Nord Stream 2 where EU member states, the EU Parliament, and its Commission will give the bloc more oversight on gas pipelines, with one caveat…the Nord Stream 2 project with Russia will not be threatened by the new regulations in the agreement.

Macron pushed hard to have the new regulations include (and derail) Nord Stream 2, an action which annoyed Angela Merkel, who eventually got her way and delivered another blow to Macron’s failing French presidency.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The Express UK

Angela Merkel hit back at Emmanuel Macron over Russia and Germany’s pipeline project, declaring it would “not be a one-sided dependency”. The German Chancellor explained that Germany will expand its gas terminals with “liquified gas”. Speaking at a press conference, Ms Merkel declared: “Do we become dependent on Russia because of this second gas pipeline? I say no, if we diversify. Germany will expand its gas terminals with liquefied gas.

“This means that we do not want to depend only on Russia, but Russia was a source of gas in the Cold War and will remain one.

“But it would not be one-sided dependency.”

Via DW

The EU parliament and its Council are set to adopt new regulations on gas pipelines connecting the bloc members with non-EU countries, the EU Commission announced early on Wednesday.

The upcoming directive is based on a compromise between EU member states and EU officials in Brussels. The bloc leaders agreed to tighten Brussels’ oversight of gas delivery and expand its rules to all pipelines plugging into the EU’s gas distribution network.

“The new rules ensure that… everyone interested in selling gas to Europe must respect European energy law,” EU Energy Commissioner Miguel Arias Canete said in a statement.

For example, owners of pipelines linking EU and non-EU countries would also be required to allow access for their competitors. Brussels would also have more power regarding transparency and tariff regulations.

Russian ambassador slams US

Brussels has repeatedly expressed concern over the controversial Nord Stream 2 project which would deliver Russian gas directly to Germany through a pipeline under the Baltic Sea. Many EU states oppose the mammoth project, and the US claims it would allow Moscow to tighten its grip on the EU’s energy policy.

Berlin has insisted that the pipeline is a “purely economic” issue.

Speaking to Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung daily, Russian ambassador to Berlin, Sergey Nechayev, slammed the US’ opposition as an attempt to “push its competition aside” and clear the way for American suppliers of liquefied gas.

“It’s hard to believe that a country that is destroying the rules of free and fair trade, that is imposing import tariffs on its competition, that is flying slogans like ‘America First’ on its flags and often threatens biggest European concerns with illegal sanctions, is now really concerned about European interests,” the Russian envoy said in remarks published in German on Wednesday.

Last week, France unexpectedly rebelled against the project, but Berlin and Paris soon reached a compromise. Thanks to their agreement, the latest deal is not expected to impede the ongoing construction of Nord Stream 2.

Citing sources from negotiators’ circles, German public broadcaster ARD reported that the deal left room for Germany to approve exceptions from the EU-wide rules.

According to the EU Commission, however, exceptions are “only possible under strict procedures in which the Commission plays a decisive role.”

The Gazprom-backed pipeline is set to be completed by the end of the year.

 

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Latest

UK Defence Secretary looking for a fight with both China and Russia (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 87.

Alex Christoforou

Published

on

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson’s idea to deploy hard power against China and Russia, starting with plans to send Britain’s new aircraft carrier to the tense sea routes in the South China Sea.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Britain’s Gavin Williamson places Russia & China on notice, I’m not joking,” authored by John Wight, via RT

UK Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson is itching for conflict with Russia and China. He’s not mad. Not even slightly. But he is stupid. Very.

Unlike former fireplace salesman Gavin Williamson, I am no military expert. But then you do not need to be one to understand that while Britain going to war with Russia and China might work as a video game, the real thing would be an exceedingly bad idea.

So why then in a speech delivered to the Royal United Services Institute in London, did Mr Williamson’s argument on the feasibility of the real thing elicit applause rather than the shrieks of horror and demands he be sacked forthwith it should have? This is a serious question, by the way. It is one that cuts through British establishment verbiage to reveal a country ruled not by the sober and doughty political heavyweights of years gone by, but by foaming fanatics in expensive suits

Placing to one side for a moment the insanity of the very concept of Britain deploying hard power against Russia and/or China, the prospect of fighting a war against two designated enemies at the same time is a recipe for disaster. Not satisfied with that, though, Mr Williamson is actually contemplating a conflict with three different enemies at the same time – i.e. against Russia, China, and the millions of people in Britain his government is currently waging war against under the rubric of austerity.

“Today, Russia is resurgent,” Mr Williamson said, “rebuilding its military arsenal and seeking to bring the independent countries of the former Soviet Union, like Georgia and Ukraine, back into its orbit.”

For Mr Williamson and his ilk a resurgent Russia is a bad thing. Much better in their eyes if Russia, after the Soviet era in the 1990s, had remained on its knees as a free market desert; its state institutions in a state of near collapse and tens of millions of its citizens in the grip of immiseration. Yes, because in that scenario Western ideologues like him would have had free rein to rampage around the world as they saw fit, setting fire to country after country on the perverse grounds of ‘saving them’ for democracy.

As it is, he and his still managed to squeeze in a considerable amount of carnage and chaos in the years it did take Russia to recover. The indictment reads as follows: Yugoslavia destroyed; Afghanistan turned upside down; Iraq pushed into the abyss; Libya sent to hell.

By the time they turned their attention to Syria, intent on exploiting an Arab Spring that NATO in Libya transformed into an Arab Winter, Russia had recovered and was able to intervene. It did so in concert with the Syrian Arab Army, Iran and Hezbollah to save the day – much to the evident chagrin of those who, like Gavin Williamson, prefer to see countries in ashes rather than independent of Western hegemony.

As to the facile nonsense about Russia trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine back into its orbit, both countries happen to share a border with Russia and both countries, in recent years, have been used by the UK and its allies as cat’s paws with the eastward expansion of NATO in mind.

It gets worse though: “The Alliance must develop its ability to handle the kind of provocations that Russia is throwing at us. Such action from Russia must come at a cost.”

“Provocations,” the man said. Since British troops have been taking part in exercises on Russia’s doorstep, not the other way round, one wonders if Gavin Williamson wrote this speech while inebriated.

It is Russia that has been on the receiving end of repeated provocations from NATO member states such as the UK in recent times, and it is Russia that has been forced to respond to protect its own security and that of its people where necessary. Furthermore, not only in Russia but everywhere, including the UK, people understand that when you have political leaders intoxicated by their own national myths and propaganda to such an extent as Britain’s Defence Secretary, danger ensues.

The most enduring of those national myths where London is concerned is that the British Empire was a force for good rather than a vast criminal enterprise, that Britain and America won the Second World War together alone, that Iraq had WMDs, and that international law and international brigandage really are one and the same thing.

Perhaps the most preposterous section of the speech came when Mr Williamson tried to fashion a connection between Brexit and Britain’s military strength: “Brexit has brought us to a moment. A great moment in our history. A moment when we must strengthen our global presence, enhance our lethality, and increase our mass.”

Reading this, you can almost hear Churchill turning in his grave. Britain’s wartime prime minister had such as Gavin Williamson in mind when he famously said, “He has all the virtues I dislike, and none of the vices I admire.”

Mr Williamson obviously misread the memo talking up not the opportunity for increased conflict with China after Brexit but trade.

This was not a speech it was a linguistic car crash, one that will forever command an honoured place in compendiums of the worst political speeches ever made. As for Gavin Williamson, just as no responsible parent would ever dream of putting an 10-year old behind the wheel of car to drive unsupervised, no responsible British government would ever appoint a man like him as its Defence Secretary.

In years past, he would have struggled to find employment polishing the brass plate outside the building.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading

JOIN OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Advertisement

Advertisement

Quick Donate

The Duran
EURO
DONATE
Donate a quick 10 spot!
Advertisement
Advertisement

Advertisement

The Duran Newsletter

Trending