CBO projected 400B in interest payments for 2022. It's growing by the quarter and rate hikes will be baked into issuance of newer treasuries. That growing sink hole will impact everything from general spending to how long stimulus packages will last in the general economy, you can't borrow money to pay the bills and hope you make more in the future to pay off both the debt and your current bills. A lot of our economy is financialized and pinned upon low interest rate policies. Stocks rise and crash upon rumors of upcoming fomc meetings. Currency strength is also heavily influenced when the Fed didn't have as much clout with it a few decades before. We'll likely need both tax increases and spending cuts to make a serious dent into our 120%+ debt:GDP ratio. These are levels we haven't seen since WW2 and was only paid off when the US continued enforcing rationing and consumer savings a few years after it ended. A global debt jubilee is more realistic considering the current political situation...
The US government's revenue is not like a 30hr/wk job, it is like the highest paid job in the world. It is more than the next two nations combined. Your argument would make sense if we were talking about Palau. The US has been THE economic superpower for a long time and still last year was our highest revenue. If your government is in debt when you have more income than China and India combined, revenue is not the issue.
you can’t possibly be this willfully ignorant. then again, you’re the same willfully ignorant one who had asserted that the City of Irvine, CA—whose population is -40% while, -40% Asian, 20 % others—-is not a diverse city
No country in the history of the world has ever had more revenue than the United States last year (possibly the height of empire of the UK or Rome if you adjust for inflation). Somehow, not every country in the history of the world has been in debt. So, clearly it is possible to not be in debt with revenue at the level it is now, or less. You can say that I am ignorant all you like, but these are just facts. At least you changed the wording of your tired response. This isn't the dunk you think it is. I said Asian and White people have lower crime rates than Black and Hispanic people (objectively true), and that a city having a lot of Asian and White people being low in crime is not proof that diverse cities have lower crime rates, in fact they tend to have higher crime rates (also objectively true). I love it every time you post this, because I get to point out to you over and over again that you were wrong, I was right, and you thought you had some kind of valid counterargument, but you didn't. Thanks again.
doubling down on your willful ignorance yet, ur unwilling / unable to point to any facts. btw, your baseless claim that diversity leads to higher crime rate was proven wrong in this discussion, https://bbs.clutchfans.net/threads/...ommunity-members.310471/page-34#post-14088040,
You're either being disingenuous here or are just dumb. Revenues and expenses go up as the US grows - more people, more income, inflation. etc. Revenues as a % of GDP is not at all-time highs by any stretch.
Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFRGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org) It was the third highest since 1930. Higher than when there was a surplus under Clinton. So, it appears I am neither disnegenuous nor dumb. Here is the spending side, in case you wanted it: Government Current Expenditures/Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org) We are right around the high spending level pre-COVID (nothing like 2020-2021 though).
one day they’ll realize that the vast majority of Americans don’t give a damn about anti-woke, the green M&M, and Scooby Doo and aren’t in favor of stripping away Medicare, SS, and abortion rights or maybe not
That's what they do, the grandmaster deflectors. Get you riled up about transgendering the kids or some other bogus claim while they lobby for rich corporations and keep axing at your health benefits, retirement, increase taxes... The republican and the democrats are on the same side. Look it's the climate change, more taxes for us.
Democrats at least attempt to govern and try to preserve or increase rights at this stuff from the right just looks so silly How are u a grown man enraged and crying about a green M&M?
There's a few posters here who are (allegedly) grown (allegedly) men who constantly cry real tears about this stuff everyday throughout multiple posts. You should ask them.
it is too bad that u don't understand. the Gov accrued the liabilities for social securities benefits for boomers who, for the most part, have work and contributed to the Social Security fund for ~~ 40 years. during their working year, while the Gov incurred these SS benefits, no cash expenditures were required. now that these demographics have retired, no longer contributing to the social securities, cash expenditures to relieved the Gov's liabilities have been rising.
StupidMoniker, ur a glutton for punishment, continuing to publicize your willful ignorance prima facie evidence of your lack of understanding your parroted talking points ignore how these expenditures were incurred. in the case of social security the expenditures were recorded as an accrued liability, when the workers were working / contributing to the social security fund, which do not require cash payment the relief of theses liabilities, when workers retire, thru the form of cash payments it'd behoove you to educate yourself, and stop publicizing your willful ignorance
The bad policies in the past that make up some of our spending problems do not somehow transmute them into revenue problems. Nor should we continue to have bad policies that create future spending problems. The fact is that we have more money than ever, but it still isn't enough because we spend too much. Does it rely on ever increasing inputs from new "investors" to pay out the earlier members. Is all output to current beneficiaries funded entirely by new money coming in, not by actual earnings on prior investments? Seems remarkably similar to a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that the information about how it works is provided, if you choose to read it. Edit: Just kidding, the biggest difference is that you are forced to participate in it, you don't have to be conned into investing.
yet another eg of your willful ignorance---parroting talking one-sided / disjointed talking points about which you don't understand one can infer that, judging from your penchant for parroting meaningless/piecemeal talking points, you wouldn't know a bad policy from a bad policy
just the facts; it is a revenue problem since the 1950s, the highest marginal income tax rates have decreased from 92% to 50% in the Reagan years in the 1980s to the current 37% add to it, thanks to the Trump tax cut in 2017, the uber rich are no longer subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax, AMT
One cannot know a bad policy from a bad policy. That makes no sense. You cannot differentiate on the same identical characteristic. You know what a better measure of revenue than top marginal tax rate is? Revenue. 2022 was the highest revenue by dollar amount in history and the third highest by percent of GDP. No matter what the top marginal tax rate is, whether or not the rich pay AMT, if the IRS is open on Sundays, or if you understand categorization, the US government is flush with revenue. The issue is spending. We have high revenue, but our spending outpaces it.
