your parroted claim that " the debt issue make inflationary/deflationary arguments murky and technical" is meaningless, when you can't even provide any details or examples, ROFLMAO, reminiscent of
there is no problem w the US dollar, as evidenced the fact that > 62% of the global commerce are transacted using the US dollars. it underscores the strength of the greenback. if only you can provide details and eg. do you even understand this phenomena, the US economy ~ 20% of the global economy > 60% of global commerce are transacted using the US dollar ?
Wackadoo bump on the moment we reached a trillion plus in servicing the interest in debt. I'm living rent free in some peon's mind. We could double our annual defense budget or give medicare for all with that money. Or we could just pretend 32T doesn't exist and do it now. What's the worse that could happen?
Just a side comment - When the Wharton data was brought up in the debate, Trump defended it by claiming that the top professors at the Wharton School think his plan is brilliant. Trump routinely denies basic facts; for example, when it was pointed out that the painting in his office is not the original, he simply repeated that it is the original.
enough of the diversionary tactic! because you are unwilling / unable to elaborate on your parroted claim that " the debt issue make inflationary/deflationary arguments murky and technical", i can only infer that you have no idea what you are parroting.
Unless we are willing to cut back on military spending we will eventually have to bankrupt and reset like Iceland did. DD
At this point, we need to cut spending and raise taxes. 2 things that aren't extremely popular and would have negative short-term consequences. Lowering the interest rates would help as well, which would be a decent option when combined with the other 2.
We don't have to raise taxes on the middle class, just the rich - and we can easily cut military spending and make a massive difference. The problem will be downstream where companies like Boeing get their military contracts cancelled leading to massive layoffs across the military support structure. No party wants to be there when this happens as it is probably a recession at that point. DD
I once thought the military spending bump was grotesque under Trump because of the 300B increase over time, but someone here (Major?) pointed out that the overall % to GDP has been relatively low which means it's still a fairly good deal (secure global shipping, alliances that promote further growth, clout and positioning, etc...) despite the waste and excess that appears on paper. Entitlements like Medicare and Social Security take far larger chunks with no new efficiencies or cost savings in sight. Those will continue to grow and cannibalize economic growth as more workers retire and enter the welfare system. So yeah, whittling down that debt Does Matter as that 1 Trillion in Interest Only payments is shifted away from investment and economic activity, though finding new means of productivity and healthcare/retiree cost reduction are the bigger wins.
Those are NOT Entitlements - those are things that the public paid into as a savings for later in life......... We could cut military spending, cut down on foreign aide, and dedicate a percentage of our budget towards principal......etc. Or, we could just tell the people we owe money to, that we will no longer pay the interest, and will pay down the debt, or we won't pay anything and just restructure - our money isn't guaranteed by anything....just our word. Debt doesn't REALLY matter, as governments are not businesses and are not meant to be profitable. DD
The Nordic countries on average maintain a debt to GDP ratio less than half of the USA’s while simultaneously averaging a higher government spending to GDP ratio (and the more extensive social programs that come with that spending, and the better societal markers that come with those social programs). Wizard shít
They have had years longer to go through the grotesque capitalistic FOCUS ONLY period and have emerged with a more self sustaining one that helps everyone, not just the rich. DD
Ok, SS is not defined as an entitlement. Medicare and Medicaid are though. As for the bolded, you want to default on the debt? Are you a holding a yuuuge BTC bag?
It's $892 billion in interest (CBO 2024 projection), but you can round it up. The 2024 GDP is approximately $28 trillion, so yes, military spending is a small percentage of GDP (3.2%). The U.S. spends about $910 billion on defense in 2024, which is around 14% of the federal budget. Spending on Social Security and Medicare is $1.3 trillion and $850 billion, respectively. The vast amount of Social Security and Medicare spending is not considered entitlements (since we pay into them). We can reduce military spending, cut healthcare costs (e.g. single payer), become more efficient and productive (through modern technology and AI), and increase revenue (by targeting tax cheats, increase tax on large corporation and area that is too consolidated, etc.). Services should be the last to be cut—I would argue that critical services (education, health, etcs) should be considered part of human infrastructure. If you don't invest in these areas, you'll end up with a future that is more concentrated in terms of power and wealth, and more divided.
I got 1T mainly from yesterday's headline cycle. https://thehill.com/business/budget/4882733-us-national-debt-gross-interest-payments/#:~:text=The federal government has paid,in the current fiscal year. The federal government has paid north of $1 trillion in gross interest payments on its debt for fiscal 2024 as the national debt continues to climb. The Treasury Department said in a recent statement that the U.S. paid about $1.05 trillion in gross interest on treasury debt securities in the current fiscal year. The figure is estimated to reach roughly $1.16 trillion in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30. By contrast, the Treasury Department said total outlays for net interest reached $843 billion in fiscal 2024, topping other big ticket items like national defense, for which outlays have reached $798 billion so far. Outlays were still higher, however, for two other highlighted functions: Social Security and Medicare. When looking at the interest costs, fiscal hawks typically look at net interest versus gross interest on Treasury Department securities, as the latter also includes intragovernmental payments. However, the $1 trillion mark has gotten attention; and according to CNBC, it marks the first time that gross interest payments have topped the figure, which also marks a 30 percent jump from the previous year. I'll concede with SS as it has it's funded mostly through payroll taxes, but only a third (~34%) of Medicare is funded through payroll taxes. Medicaid is also takes a big chunk in non-discretionary spending. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/what-to-know-about-medicare-spending-and-financing/ We definitely need more taxes, though all Americans tend to vote out anybody mentioning a single whiff of it. Cutting funding is also a hard battle. Dems were forcasting armegeddon when Obama was fighting Congress over budget sequestration, but the pain was mostly contained within each department. It was a blunt and crude method to save money that was likely painful for those involved on the frontlines, but that's the most we've gotten as a recent example. With large disparities in income, planning government cuts is almost a big a political landmine as raising taxes. Voters want both cake havings and eatings. Lest we become a third world shithole.
We are about to be on a rare lowering cycle which will probably set rates back to a more historical level. It will make borrowing less expensive but we still have a revenue and spending issue.
therein lies the cost of being the de-facto global reserve currency. while the US economy is ~~ 20-25% of the global economy, ~~63 % of the global commercial transactions are settled using the US dollars Do deficits matter? Judging by what has happened in the US, post WW2, the answer appears to be no Invisible has been parroting the opinion of one school of thought that says that the debts are not sustainable. they've been saying that since WW2; btw, all other major economies (Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, UK, Japan, Korea) operate on deficit spending. in this prevailing economic landscape, for the US to do a 180 would be to commit economic suicide.
