They had no deal that would approach ending the deficits of that time.
Over the last decade our deficits have been between $.6T to over $1T per year. Never mind 2020/21 because much of the deficit is COVID spending.
During the 2012 election cycle the Dems were floating massive tax increases. I don't remember the specifics (I did post them here) but the most draconian plans would have raised ~$240B per year. That would have covered about 1/3rd of the 2012 deficit. So still no money to pay on the debt.
And those types of draconian tax increases would likely have harmed the economy enough that the actual tax revenues would not have approached the goal.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Well, what Boehner and Obama agreed on was Tax hikes and spending cuts. However, Boehner had to back out because his base started to protest the fact that he came to a compromise with Obama on something. So, there seemed to be two level headed guys who actually came to an agreement but it was the stupid public (Fuelsed by news organizations) that prevented the deal from taking place.
So, on that, I think there is slim hope. However, the problem right now is that Democrats are in complete power right now and I think only one of them is actually talking about a balanced budget. That said, the Republicans were also in control for two years and they didn't do a damn thing about it either. So, I think in order for a balanced budget to actually come to fruition, it would have to be two opposing sides in power.
Tax hikes often bring in less tax revenue because they dampen the economy.
Here is an article that I used to show Trump's economy was better than Obama's. But I am posting it now to show how Trump handled growing the economy.
At least until the pandemic, the president’s unconventional policy got unprecedented results.
Once in office, Trump ignored this consensus. He implemented a program of tax cuts, spending increases and unprecedented pressure on the Fed to cut interest rates to zero and keep them there. Trump’s goal of 3% growth was derided as delusional, while a bipartisan chorus of commentators declared his policies reckless and irresponsible.
They were anything but. Not only did the unemployment rate continue to fall, but the percentage of Americans aged 25 to 54 either employed or looking for a job saw its first sustained rise since the late 1980s. This inflection point changed the character of the labor market.The key to that number is the breadth of Trump’s expansionary agenda. Republican presidents have typically focused on tax cuts, particularly for businesses, with the idea that they will encourage an increase in investment and wages. Democrats have tended to seek spending increases, often with the hope that they will stimulate the overall economy and increase job growth. Presidents of both parties have traditionally left interest-rate policy to the Fed.
Trump broke the mold by aggressively battling on all three fronts. He also sought to increase jobs in manufacturing and agriculture by pursuing a series of trade wars. (Most economists, from across the ideological spectrum, think this policy backfired.) Nonetheless, if one had to choose between Trump’s three good policies plus trade wars, or the more modest economic policies of his predecessors, the easy choice is Trump.
Trump increased spending in areas that have a high return on investment. Stuff that returned more than spent.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I don't think it is possible for any elected Congress to balance the budget. Too many people have an interest in one government program or another.
Debt will pile up until the economy crashes at some point in the future.
ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Well, under Trumps tax cuts, the revenue actually decreased and you and I have talked about it before and I posted a link from WSJ proving my case on this matter. (To which you seemed to concede)
Trumps tax cuts also showed temporary growth. The GDP did increase by 3 percent in the year the cuts were implemented and then went back to the same levels as under Obama after that. As I read in Reuters at the time, that was exactly how economist were predicting it would go. Where Trump was lucky, (and what many were waiting for) there were no bubbles bursting under his watch. Those bubbles bursts is what starts a recession, otherwise an economy is al;ways growing. There were no bubble bursts under Obama either but, the economy was in the toilet when he actually sat... A president, any president, has no control over the economic bubbles that formulate.
As far as Trumps high returns on investment is very debatasble... For instance, (I can't remember the state) there was a car manufacturing plant that was financed by Trump (Which he boasted about) into staying in the US... As it turns out, that plant took the money and invested in automation. Meaning no new jobs were created. The trade wars did not help one bit and we are subsidizing farmers as a result and not exporting as much due to retaliatory tariffs. So definitely no return on that investment.