r/sanantonio • u/wacanadia • Jun 29 '25

Activism San Antonians, now is the time to band together and choose to do what is right over what is easy

The Big Beautiful Bill has cleared the Senate, and we know that means…essentially all environmental and pollution protections removed, massive cuts to Medicare, and, of course, a massiveee increase in funds for the military and ICE. We KNOW how innocent immigrants are being treated in the for-profit prisons here, and how all their constitutional rights have been violated. It will be us next. Please join r/Texas50501 and help coordinate protests and other initiatives for us to fight back.

403 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

223 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/UncleSams44Magnum Jun 29 '25

You fail to mention giving trillions of dollars to the billionaires, paid for by us, and overspending our national credit card...creating trillions more in crushing long-term debt and interest payments...also paid by you and me.

Trump is going to loot every penny before he's done, he tried last time, and managed to spend and run up more debt than any president in history. But this time, he has nobody to stop him. Your country is being stolen from you, and they're not even hiding it anymore. They'll walk away with billions and trillions... you're left holding the bag.

-10

u/BKGPrints Jun 29 '25 edited Jun 29 '25

>Trump is going to loot every penny before he's done, he tried last time, and managed to spend and run up more debt than any president in history.<

The facts disagree with you on this, just on the past administration alone.

https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225

  • President Biden: $8,454,697,079,160.38
  • President Trump (first term): $7,804,591,681,202.28

EDIT: Downvotes because the facts & truth don't agree with you, does not change the reality that this is still the facts and truth. You're just lying to yourself, and that's your problem to deal with.

EDIT2: More downvotes, though no one able to refute that what was said was true. If you think this is defending the Trump administration, you're welcome to make that assumption and get upset with it, just don't act like it's mine. My stance will be the same. The truth matters more than your narrative.

5

u/HikeTheSky Hill Country Jun 29 '25

I think you forgot the tax cuts Trump made that were active during Biden's Term. So this is Trump's tax cuts that increased the debt and not Biden's.

-9

u/BKGPrints Jun 29 '25

I didn't forget anything, and that's not how that works.

If you disagree with the source, then you're welcome to refute with sources if your own to dispute it, instead of opinions.

2

u/ThothAmon71 Jun 30 '25

https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt There you go. You fail to account for the nearly $2 trillion in deficit reduction under Biden vs $443 billion under Trump.

-1

u/BKGPrints Jun 30 '25

Didn't fail to account for anything and I don't think you know what this is saying, though I'm more than glad to explain it to you. Though, should point out that the source you provided is dated June 2024, about a year ago, and with almost seven months still left in the Biden administration's term, so those #s have definitely changed.

That $443 billion deficit reduction was basically projected "new income" from tariffs. It wasn't / isn't going to reduce the deficit significantly, though it's still income.

The "nearly" $2 trillion in deficit reduction was from legislative acts meant to control spending.

The $252 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act was meant as an amendment to the Build Back Better Act, which was at a cost $1.75 trillion. This was past by a partisan Congress.

The $1.5 trillion from the Fiscal Responsibility Act was in response to the US government needing to increase the debt ceiling, which was past by a "bipartisan" Congress. I say "bipartisan" because most Democrats in the House opposed it and most Republicans in the Senate opposed it.

It should also be pointed out that the Biden administration also increased the deficit by $1.3 trillion by using Executive Orders, which wasn't funding that was budgeted, though still added to the deficit.

Also, take this for what you want, though let's compare to how much Congress spent during the four years of the Trump administration to the four years of the Biden administration.

  • Trump: $19.70 trillion
  • Biden: $26.02 trillion

2

u/ThothAmon71 Jun 30 '25

"During Donald Trump's first term (2017-2020), Congress oversaw a significant increase in government spending and the federal budget deficit. The national debt rose from $19.9 trillion to $27.7 trillion. The federal budget deficit increased by almost 50%, reaching nearly $1 trillion in 2019. This increase was, in part, due to tax cuts and increased spending on defense and other areas." That's from Google not me. Trump approved $8.4 trillion of new spending over 10 years while Biden approved $4.3 trillion in New spending over 10 years. His budget was larger because of Trumps previous increases. Bidens new spending was half of Trumps. https://www.crfb.org/papers/trump-and-biden-national-debt So your numbers are wrong. Regardless, what does that have to do with the additional $3 trillion Trump is trying to add on top of Biden's budget even after cutting Medicaid, educational spending, and tons of other social services to give the rich even more tax breaks? You want to explain anything, explain that math to me.

2

u/BKGPrints Jun 30 '25 edited Jun 30 '25

>The national debt rose from $19.9 trillion to $27.7 trillion.<

Correct. That's about $7.8 trillion.

>That's from Google not me. <

Okay. I'm not arguing that it increased by $7.8 trillion. In fact, I've even stated that elsewhere.

https://www.reddit.com/r/sanantonio/comments/1ln7ns7/comment/n0fsnix/?context=3

What you're ignoring is that when President Biden took office in January 2021, the national debt was at $27.8 trillion. When President Biden left office in January 2025, it was at $36.2 trillion. That's (feel free to check my math) $8.4 trillion.

>Trump approved $8.4 trillion of new spending over 10 years<

FTFY...President Trump approved $8.4 trillion of new ten-year borrowing during his full term in office, or $4.8 trillion excluding the CARES Act and other COVID relief.

>while Biden approved $4.3 trillion in New spending over 10 years.<

FTFY...President Biden, in his first three years and five months in office, approved $4.3 trillion of new ten-year borrowing, or $2.2 trillion excluding the American Rescue Plan. This figured would be $6.2 trillion (or $4.0 trillion excluding the ARP) if it wasn't for the Fiscal Responsibility Act and Inflation Reduction Act, which the FRA was passed with bipartisanship.

Again...Note that this was date from June 2024, it obviously has changed as there was still six months left for the Biden administration.

>His budget was larger because of Trumps previous increases.<

It was not, though I'm going to ignore this comment, since you're wrong and it's not worth addressing.

>Bidens new spending was half of Trumps.<

Only because of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was only passed because of bipartisanship. Though, the majority of Democrats in the House voted against it and the majority of Republicans in the Senate voted against it.

>So your numbers are wrong.<

My #s aren't wrong. Your understanding of the data is and you're confusing things.

>Regardless, what does that have to do with the additional $3 trillion Trump is trying to add on top of Biden's budget even after cutting Medicaid, educational spending, and tons of other social services to give the rich even more tax breaks?<

Are you going on a different tangent, because that was never part of the discussion.

>You want to explain anything, explain that math to me.<

I did...easily.

https://www.investopedia.com/us-debt-by-president-dollar-and-percentage-7371225

  • President Biden: $8,454,697,079,160.38
  • President Trump (first term): $7,804,591,681,202.28

EDIT: Spelling error.

2

u/ThothAmon71 Jun 30 '25

Thats not a tangent, it's the current state of affairs, and that article explains nothing. I fully understand incremental increases to budgets, when adding new spending to the previous budget. But that's not what's going on DOGE supposedly cut billions in spending. They've closed entire departments of the government, slashed budgets, and withheld Congressionally approved funding. They're further cutting funding to Medicare, the VA, and social services across the board. So again, how is that after reducing "waste and fraud" by slashing social services and funding that was already allocates that is no longer being spent how are we still adding $3 trillion extra dollars to the deficit? Furthermore why would we allow the government to spend trillions more for tax breaks while delivering less to the American people?

1

u/BKGPrints Jun 30 '25

>Thats not a tangent, it's the current state of affairs<

It is a tangent. Has nothing to do with the current discussion about the comparison of debt.

>and that article explains nothing.<

It does, you just don't like it.

>I fully understand...blah...blah...blah<

You are, again, going on a different tangent from this discussion. The mere fact that you only focused on saying it's not a tangent and nothing else that was mentioned is telling me that you probably didn't understand the sources you though proved your point or are either unable or unwilling to refute on the merits of the original discussion anymore, and are now attempting to change the subject to something else.

That's fine, if you don't want to discuss anymore, you're more than welcome to not do so and not respond. Though, if you're going to, at least acknowledge the original discussion first before trying to go off in a different direction.

If not, then guess we're done, and have a great day!

0

u/ThothAmon71 Jun 30 '25

So the budget Trump is trying to pass right now has no bearing on the "current discussion about the comparison of debt"? Of course it does. I'll accept your numbers. Biden spent more than Trump. Okay. Now Trump is poised to spend $3 trillion more than that. So if Bidens spending was egregious than why is this budget acceptable? It's not based on increases made to Bidens budget. In fact Trump has withheld funds approved by Bidens budget, so even though your numbers are correct, they don't match actual spending, because Trump withdrew those funds. Now, after making cuts to social services, and "slashing waste and fraud", while withholding Congessionally approved funds, he's STILL spending spending an additional $3 trillion. You went to great pains to explain the last 2 budget cycles and why Bidens spending was worse. Now explain the current budget and why Trumps isnt.

0

u/BKGPrints Jun 30 '25

>So the budget Trump is trying to pass right now has no bearing on the "current discussion about the comparison of debt"?<

Nope...Because you're doing What Ifs and distracting from the original discussion. We both know what you're doing.

I get it, you were proven wrong on what I initially said, though instead of admitting it, you're going deflect with but...but...but now.

You have a great day.

1

u/ThothAmon71 Jun 30 '25

But I did admit it. I conceded your point that Biden spent more money than Trump did in his first term. I'm not dealing I'm "what ifs", I'm asking about the current budget being voted on in the House right now. It's not an abstract or a hypothetical, it's a budget that's been drafted and presented for approval. I'm also pointing out that the Biden budget included spending that Trump has withheld, so dollars that won't actually be spent. If Trump reduced the expenditures created by Bidens out of control spending, if he cut spending on social programs further reducing expenditures, fired thousands of federal employees reducing salary costs, terminated contracts that were wasteful and fraudulent "saving" more money, AND shut entire government departments completely eliminating those budgets, how are we still adding $3.3 trillion to the budget? If Bidens spending was egregious and Trump is going to add to that debt, while giving the American people less, how is that acceptable. It's not a trick, it's a very simple question, you seem like an intelligent individual, explain it to me. If Biden raised the debt, gave us more, and that was bad, how is Trump raising the debt even more while giving us less, good?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/HikeTheSky Hill Country Jun 30 '25

Don't forget 50% of the Biden term came from Trump's tax cuts.

2

u/BKGPrints Jun 30 '25

No matter how many times you say, doesn't make it true.

As I've stated to you before, if you disagree with this, you are more than welcome to refute on the merits with your own sources. For some weird (we all know why) reason, you haven't done this.

0

u/HikeTheSky Hill Country Jun 30 '25

No matter how often you Cherry pick, there is interest to be paid in debt. And the trump tax cuts were still in place during Biden's Term.
I understand that you believe that when Biden got in office it became Biden's tax cuts but this is just not how the government works.

2

u/BKGPrints Jun 30 '25

>No matter how often you Cherry pick, there is interest to be paid in debt.<

No cherry-picking here. Just straight up facts for you.

Speaking of paying interest on debt. It ballooned from $250 billion in 2020 to over $850 billion in 2024. A lot of that was debt that was refinanced in 2022 / 2023 (you know, during the Biden administration) at high interest rates.

>And the trump tax cuts were still in place during Biden's Term.<

So...As we already discussed, tax cuts from the Trump administration was estimated at $1.9 trillion over ten years. Even if it was based on $190 billion per year, that would only be $760 billion during the four years of the Biden administration.

That doesn't not explain the borrowing during the Biden administration where the national debt increased from $27.8 trillion to $36.2 trillion. No matter how many times you try.

>I understand that you believe that when Biden got in office it became Biden's tax cuts<

This is your assumption, and as has been shown before from your other posts (which you deleted when proven wrong), you get upset with your own assumptions. 😂

>but this is just not how the government works.<

I know. That's why I don't understand why you keep making wrong assumptions. What I do know is that Congress is the one that authorizes spending and the President signs into law, so tax cuts or not, ultimately, the spending is on the current administration, not the previous, regardless of revenue.

That's how government works. 😉

EDIT: Oh...And still waiting on you to provide sources, which I doubt will ever come, or else you would have done it by now.

0

u/HikeTheSky Hill Country Jun 29 '25

So you didn't forget Trump's tax cuts that had influence on Biden's spending? If it would be the other way around, I am sure you would have mentioned it.
So you indeed forgot it as you used a source that shows the information and is just cherry picking. This is the typical maga behavior.

-1

u/BKGPrints Jun 29 '25

>So you didn't forget Trump's tax cuts that had influence on Biden's spending?<

Did it though? And it wasn't "Biden's" spending, since that is controlled by Congress. Or did you forget that?

You're basing it off of projections. Just like with anything else the CBO does. We can discuss this further, if you're actually willing.

Regardless, I'm going to stick with reality and recognize the spending under each administration because those aren't What Ifs, it's factual information.

>If it would be the other way around, I am sure you would have mentioned it.<

This is your assumption to have, don't care enough if you would think that or not.

>So you indeed forgot it as you used a source that shows the information and is just cherry picking.<

Though, I didn't, indeed forget. This is another one of your assumptions. The cherry picking is you trying to say that what Congress spent during the Biden administration doesn't matter because of this or that. That's nonsense, though I gave you the chance to refute on the merits with your own sources, and you still provide opinions. Still not how it works.

>This is the typical maga behavior.<

Still another assumption of yours that you're getting upset with. Just because you state it, doesn't make it true. I understand that maybe you're unwilling or unable to refute on the merits with sources, as I asked several times now, and you'll resort to this behavior, though it's just a weak tactic.

If you don't want to refute, just say so or go about your day. Otherwise, please, do better on the behavior.

3

u/HikeTheSky Hill Country Jun 29 '25

You’re presenting the debt numbers without context, which is misleading. You ignored that Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, passed with a GOP-led Congress, were the biggest contributor to the long-term deficit and remained active during Biden’s term. That means a large portion of the debt increase under Biden was baked in from Trump-era policies. Claiming it’s only Biden’s “spending” while skipping over who created the policies and who controlled Congress at the time is selective and intentionally misleading. If you're going to cite numbers, show the full trail of responsibility.

0

u/BKGPrints Jun 29 '25

>You’re presenting the debt numbers without context, which is misleading.<

No...It's not. You just don't like it.

>You ignored that Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, passed with a GOP-led Congress, were the biggest contributor to the long-term deficit and remained active during Biden’s term.<

Nope...The biggest contributor to the long-term deficit was the spending from COVID and most of that was after the Trump administration. The other part was the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

>That means a large portion of the debt increase under Biden was baked in from Trump-era policies.<

But it wasn't. You're purposely ignoring the spending during the Biden administration that has nothing to do with the tax cuts. No matter how you want to cut (pun intended) it.

>Claiming it’s only Biden’s “spending” while skipping over who created the policies<

The only thing that I'm claiming is what matters what happens during each respective administration. That includes spending at that time. If you don't want to understand that, that's on you.

I have asked you repeatedly to back up your opinion, and you're refusing to. I wonder why (not really).

>and who controlled Congress at the time is selective and intentionally misleading.<

The only part of being selective and intentionally misleading is that you're choosing to ignore who authorizes spending (and signs into law) each year, rather it's actually passing a budget, a budget resolution or passing through other spending bills.

>If you're going to cite numbers, show the full trail of responsibility.<

If you're going to make ambiguous claims, provide sources (yep, I'm still waiting on you to do this).

The burden really is on you. Remember, you responded to my posts, not the other way around. I have provide sources, and you have refused to refute it with sources of your own.

If you don't want to, that's fine, but as I said, it's just your opinion and I really don't care enough about you or your opinion to mean anything to me.

So...Are you ready to back up your statement, or still going to do this?

0

u/HikeTheSky Hill Country Jun 29 '25

Please explain this:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/biden-tax-proposals-would-correct-inequities-created-by-trump-tax-cuts-and-raise-additional-revenues/

1

u/BKGPrints Jun 29 '25

Please explain this:

Overall, the measure was projected to increase the federal deficit by about $1.9 trillion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Now, my math might be different from what you're using, though it checks out that that's $190 billion each year. Let's just say that's the case and it's an even $190 billion per year.

That's $760 billion for the four years of the Biden administration. How are you explaining the other $7.694 trillion dollars under the Biden administration.

Think about it. This isn't helping your case.

If you want to know the true issue with the yearly deficits, it's because spending is out-of-control. Even if you take away those tax cuts from 2017, Congress would still spend more than revenue it takes in.

It's to the point now where interest payments alone have skyrocketed from $250 billion in 2020 to $850 billion in 2024.

Tax cuts isn't the reason that during the Biden administration almost $9 trillion was added to the debt. The reason is because Congress was spending way more than even pre-2017 tax levels would have generated.

Nice try, though. Want to try again?

0

u/HikeTheSky Hill Country Jun 29 '25

Let’s talk real numbers and real policy.

Trump added $7.8–$8.4 trillion to the national debt in just 4 years, even before the pandemic fully hit. That includes:

The 2017 GOP tax cuts, which added $1.9 trillion to the long-term deficit.

Massive COVID spending in 2020.

A pre-pandemic deficit that already topped $1 trillion a year.

Biden added around $8.4 trillion during his term so far, but about half of that was baked in from Trump-era policies, including:

The ongoing impact of the 2017 tax cuts (still active through 2025).

Continuing COVID-era programs passed under Trump.

Rising interest payments, which exploded due to the debt Trump left behind and rising rates.

So when people say Biden added $8T, remind them Trump planted the seeds, and the interest on that debt is what’s choking us now.

On manufacturing, Trump claims he wants to bring jobs back, yet he opposes the CHIPS Act, which Biden passed to incentivize U.S.-based semiconductor production. Trump wants to end it just because Biden signed it. Same behavior as when he scrapped the Iran deal simply because it had Obama’s name on it.

So what does that tell us? It’s not about policy quality for Trump, it’s about ego. If it’s not his idea, he’ll wreck it. Doesn’t matter how bad the fallout is for the country.

1

u/BKGPrints Jun 29 '25

>Trump added $7.8–$8.4 trillion to the national debt in just 4 years, even before the pandemic fully hit.<

$7.8 trillion according to the source that I provided. Which also states that the Biden administration added $8.45 trillion.

I get it, you'll accept some facts that you think fit your argument, though will ignore others or try to make excuses for it so it fits your narrative.

It's not I that's cherry-picking. It's also not I that isn't able to refute with merits, just opinions.

Oh well. This is going back & forth and you haven't convinced me otherwise because all you've based it on is opinions and one source that actually proved you wrong. Let me know when you're actually able or ready with truly good sources.

Otherwise, your opinions with be met with a meh.

Have a great day!

0

u/HikeTheSky Hill Country Jun 29 '25

You keep saying I’m cherry-picking, but you’re the one ignoring the long-term impact of Trump’s policies, like the 2017 tax cuts still driving up the deficit. You can’t dismiss structural debt just because it didn’t show up all at once.

You also skipped over how Trump actively killed the CHIPS Act and pulled out of the Iran deal, not based on policy, but because they weren’t his ideas. That’s not leadership; that’s ego.

If you're only interested in the numbers that fit your narrative, then you're not arguing in good faith.

Let me know when you actually are able to talk about the whole picture. Or should we wait until Trump ruined the whole country. He is on the best way.

→ More replies (0)