I wholly endorse Robin Rosewicz’s comments in his letter “Obama had hand in our economic recovery” (Jan. 20, TribLIVE). He referenced Daniel Lucas’ letter “National debt under Trump, Obama” (Jan. 4, TribLIVE), which made the assertion that President Obama’s additions to the national debt were “statistically” much greater than under President Trump.
Actually, I think it is just that the denominator (national debt) is enlarging faster than the numerator (annual budget deficit). For instance, at $20 trillion national debt, a $1 trillion budget deficit is a 5% increase (about where we are now). At $40 trillion national debt, a $1 trillion budget deficit would be a stately 2.5% increase. At $100 trillion national debt, a $1 trillion budget deficit would be a hardly worth mentioning 1% increase. (Of course, the financial system as we know it would have collapsed before then!)
For those seeking more “statistical” exercises, check the Clinton-era budget deficits with the Bush-era deficits. Under Clinton, our national debt was actually decreasing, owing to budget surpluses. There was a brief period when there was genuine worry that 30-year Treasury bonds would be retired with no replacements (LOL).
Obama was handed the worst financial crisis (which had many authors under both parties) since the Great Depression, and he acted to stave off the crisis. It continues to astound me that his efforts helped save the “bacons” of the more prosperous members of the party formerly known as Republicans (it’s the Trump Party now), and they constitute his greatest critics. Perhaps those people would have rather seen their fortunes burn down.
James Kvitkovich
Hempfield