Group 1 - The article discusses the significant increase in U.S. national debt, which rose from $27.8 trillion to $36.2 trillion during Biden's presidency, highlighting a $10 trillion increase over four years [4][6][9] - The annual fiscal deficit under the Biden administration is approximately $2 trillion, with the deficit-to-GDP ratio consistently exceeding the average of the past 50 years [6][9] - The total debt of American citizens increased from $14.56 trillion to $18.04 trillion during Biden's term, marking one of the largest debt growths in U.S. history [6][9] Group 2 - Biden's administration implemented several reforms aimed at increasing fiscal revenue, including raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28% and enhancing social welfare programs [11][13] - The article compares Biden's approach to that of former President Clinton, who successfully increased government revenue through tax reforms and social investments [11][13] - Trump's first term saw significant tax cuts, reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and the highest personal income tax rate from 39.6% to 37%, leading to a decrease in government revenue [17][20] Group 3 - The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" was introduced to address the national debt and fiscal challenges, proposing to raise the debt ceiling by $5 trillion [33][36] - The act includes substantial tax cuts, particularly for small businesses and the manufacturing sector, while also eliminating certain tax credits for the renewable energy industry [37][40] - The act is expected to reduce government revenue by approximately $4.46 trillion over the next decade, raising concerns about long-term fiscal sustainability [43][45] Group 4 - The article outlines the potential negative impacts of the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on vulnerable populations, including cuts to healthcare and food assistance programs, affecting millions of Americans [49][51] - It highlights the increased financial burden on education, with reduced federal support for higher education and increased tax rates on university endowments [53][54] - The act's approach is characterized as benefiting the elite while imposing hardships on lower-income groups, leading to accusations of wealth redistribution from the poor to the rich [56][58]

Core Viewpoint - China should promote economic growth to stabilize debt, maintain policy rationality and coherence, and focus on the healthy management of private sector debt to ensure debt sustainability through various dimensions such as optimizing industrial structure, strengthening policy coordination, and enhancing debt management and risk prevention, thereby achieving robust economic development [3][16]. Group 1: U.S. Government Debt Rate Evolution - The U.S. government debt rate has evolved through two main phases since the 1940s, with a decline from the 1940s to the late 1970s due to post-war reconstruction and a subsequent rise starting in the 1980s influenced by economic conditions and political factors [5][6]. - The first phase saw a decrease in debt rate due to fiscal policies aimed at reducing military and infrastructure spending, leading to budget surpluses during certain years [5]. - The second phase, beginning with Reagan's administration, marked a continuous increase in debt rate driven by large tax cuts and increased government spending, exacerbated by economic downturns and political decisions [6][7]. Group 2: Japanese Government Debt Rate Characteristics - Japan's government debt rate has shown a long-term upward trend influenced by social security expenditures and economic bubbles, with significant fluctuations during economic crises [10][11]. - The debt rate increased sharply post-1990 due to the bursting of the economic bubble, leading to extensive fiscal measures to stabilize the economy, resulting in an average annual growth of about 7.8% in debt rate during the following years [12]. - The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated Japan's debt situation, pushing the debt rate to 259%, a significant increase of approximately 22.3 percentage points from 2019 [12][14]. Group 3: Implications for China - Economic growth is the core support for debt stability, as evidenced by the U.S. and Japan's historical experiences, suggesting that China should optimize its industrial structure and promote technological innovation to enhance GDP growth and ensure debt growth aligns with economic and fiscal revenue growth [16][17]. - Policy rationality and coherence are crucial, as political interference in fiscal decisions has led to rising debt in the U.S. and Japan; thus, China should focus on long-term strategic considerations in policy-making to avoid short-term debt risks [17][18]. - The health of the private sector is key to a virtuous debt cycle, and China should manage private sector debt effectively, encouraging reasonable leverage during economic upturns and enhancing financial services during downturns to stabilize the economy [18][19]. - Ensuring debt sustainability requires a multi-dimensional approach, including optimizing fiscal revenue structures, enhancing tax collection efficiency, and improving the sustainability of social security systems to balance debt utilization and risk prevention [18][19].

Report Industry Investment Rating No relevant content provided. Core Viewpoints of the Report - Trump's governing philosophy and policy proposals echo those of William McKinley and Ronald Reagan, but he faces more severe structural constraints, and his policy logic may evolve to use tariffs as a tactical deterrent, technology breakthrough as a long - term strategic fulcrum, and debt restructuring/monetization to relieve debt pressure, with the continuous collapse of the US dollar's credit seemingly inevitable [4][9][70] - Trade protectionism cannot subvert the fundamental logic of industrial evolution. McKinley and Reagan's successes were due to specific historical conditions, while Trump faces "triple hard constraints" [4][70] Summary According to Relevant Catalogs 1. Historical Repetition? —— Policy Review of McKinley and Reagan 1.1. Trade Barriers in the McKinley Era: High - Tariff Protectionism - After the Civil War, the US pursued trade protectionism. In 1890, the "McKinley Tariff" raised the average import tariff from 38% to 49.5%, which stimulated the rise of the US steel industry but led to retaliatory tariffs on US agricultural products from other countries, causing severe losses to US farmers [10][13][17] 1.2. Reaganomics: Trade Protection and Manufacturing Revitalization - In the 1980s, the US economy was in a "stagflation" quagmire. Reagan's government took a series of trade protection measures to protect relevant industries in the short - term, but failed to reverse the overall trend of manufacturing outflow. The US also implemented tax cuts and deregulation, but the trade deficit increased from $19.4 billion in 1980 to $151.7 billion in 1987 [20][24][36] 2. Can Old Remedies Cure New Ills? —— Challenges and Variations in the Trump Era 2.1. Historical Echo? "Manufacturing Anxiety" Continues for a Century - From McKinley to Trump, the US has faced challenges of declining manufacturing competitiveness and expanding trade deficits, with tariffs and trade restrictions being core policy tools [40] 2.2. Era Variation? Deep Globalization and High Debt - Trump faces more severe challenges. Globalization is more deeply embedded, making trade protection policies more counter - effective. The world is more multi - polar, weakening the effectiveness of unilateral actions. High federal debt compresses the operational space of fiscal policies [42] 3. Is Global Taxation a Poisonous Remedy? —— What Other Cards Does Trump Have in the Future? 3.1. Taxing Externally and Cutting Taxes Internally to Promote Manufacturing Reshoring - Trump's "equivalent tariff" policy has multiple dilemmas. Tariff contributions are limited, and there is a serious shortage of industrial workers. The government may take a combination of strategies such as precise tariff regulation, labor supply supplementation, and technological application promotion [55][57][60] 3.2. Multiple Approaches to Promote Debt Resolution - The Trump government aims to resolve the high - debt problem. There are four main paths: economic growth, debt restructuring, inflation, and debt monetization. However, each path has its own difficulties and potential negative impacts [61][62][66] 4. Historical Cycle or Era Break? —— Possible End - Game of Trump's Policies - Trump may shift to "precise deterrence" in trade policies and has a more complex path for debt resolution. Trade protectionism cannot change the fundamental logic of industrial evolution, and the continuous collapse of the US dollar's credit may be inevitable [69][70]