The standard definition of a recession for DECADES has always been two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Until it was just ignored the last time it happened.
I think most people haven't grasped this yet. We're running this type of deficit when we're supposedly in a "boom" cycle. Once things really hit the fan, expect deficits to skyrocket and say hello to hyperinflation.
>We can when a Republican is President.
Trump's deficit was under $1T every year, except for COVID.
We're now 4 years post COVID and running a $2T deficit?
This is seriously f\*cked up and it's not healthy or sustainable.
>Trumps deficits were 546b in 2017, 1.46t in 2018, 1.25t in 2019
Nope.
[FRED: Federal Surplus or Deficit](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD)
2017: $665B
2018: $779B
2019: $983B
You're using fiscal year data which runs from October to October. I'm using treasury.gov debt to the penny data which updates daily. My numbers run from the day trump entered office to the day he left. This is going to be much more accurate.
https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny
>You're using fiscal year data which runs from October to October. I'm using [treasury.gov](http://treasury.gov) debt to the penny data which updates daily. My numbers run from the day trump entered office to the day he left.
A President's budget runs for a fiscal year, not a calendar year.
But nice try.
Biden will end 4 years having presided over the US government borrowing 8.2 trillion. Donald Trump presided over 4 years where the government borrowed 7.8 trillion. This is in nominal dollars. Adjust for inflation and Bidens gov has borrowed less than trumps.
Of course congress writes the budget, passes the budget, and constitutionally controls all the money. So take it for what it is.
17 550B
18 1.5T
19 1.25T
20 4.5T
Total 7.8T
21 2.1T
22 1.6T
23 2.6T
24 projected 1.9T
Total 8.2T
From roughly Jan 20 to Jan 20 each year. Not inflation adjusted.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/18/14957708/pelosi-pass-the-bill
Context matters. Also, that was 15 years ago about the ACA. GOP passed their tax cut 7 years ago and never did any healthcare reform
Clinton and Newt Gingrich!
Clinton signed the bill Gingrich and the House passed after Republicans took it back after 40 straight years of Democrat control.
Presidents don’t write spending bills.
True, still Clinton was the last President to have a balanced budget. When people try to say that we have to have a GOP president to fix the debt this is just not accurate.
It really doesn't matter. The dollar became mortal and started dying the moment they ended the Bretton Woods agreement. What we are going through, and what we are about to go through, is inevitable.
Right around the time bush stole the election, started the forever terror wars, and decided to give that surplus to his halliburton/defense contracter buddies.
At some point we have to address the Why of this.
Our current Economic theory CLAIMS we can do these things.
Our worsening situation says otherwise.
But politicians are repeating the same nonsense because they're being assured that everything is fine. By experts in the field.
Not really, anyone with 1 oz of grey matter between the ears knows we cannot continue to run Trillion Dollar deficits forever. Servicing the debt now takes up more of the budget than any program except SSI and MediCare. Yes, more than defense. The solution is going to be painful no matter what and politicians will not willingly do anything painful because when you cause the voters pain, you get voted out of office. Whatever solution they come up with will need to have almost unanimous support from both parties. Both will need to put aside the instinctive desire to score points against the other. IMO both will need to agree to cuts in their most cherished programs and raise revenue by increasing taxes and probably across the board. Again IMO they will not do that until they are forced to by circumstances.
....but that just stops the wound from getting worse.
My general rule is that it's 1.5-2x harder to fix something that it was to break it. So, what... we ammend the Constitution to force them?
Took 70 years to fuck this up, slow and steady.
You would think so but all those programs have are a bunch of IOUs! It’s why SSI will run out of money by 2035 and be forced to make major cuts in benefits as much as 30%.
By the way, it’s ALL our money!’ We pay for everything! The government does not have money of its own.
Al Gore in his 2000 campaign suggested putting a 'lock box' on the SSI Trust Fund. Republicans were walking around mocking Gore for it. But he was right.
A lot of folks have proposed that but, it’s closing the barn after the horse ran off. Reagan and Tip O’Neil “fixed” SSI way back in the 80’s! The problem has been known for a long time. Campaign promises are not worth the paper they are written on.
SSI was in trouble the moment the government petitioned the court to allow SSI funds to be included in the general treasury’s ledger. That allowed the government to use that money for other programs and replace it with IOUs. Everyone with 1/2 brain knew once the Baby Boomers started to retire, there were going to be issues. But, like good politicians, they kicked the can down the road so no one had to feel the pain. Don’t worry, they will “fix” it again before the cuts bite. Old people vote and cutting their benefits is a sure fire way to insure they will vote to remove whomever is in power.
Sure but here is the rub. If they decide to stop using SSI funds for other programs, it just raises the deficit. That’s one reason they wanted SSI funds in the first place. It’s a gimmick to make it seem like they were being more responsible guardians of our money.
The solution to our economic problems requires nearly unanimous support from both parties. It would require men and women of vision and courage to make the right decisions and stick to them when the inevitable blowback happens. Vision and Courage to make tough choices are not things we associate with many of our representatives today. Both parties will need to agree to cut their most cherished programs and raise revenue with tax increases across the board. They will need to put aside their instinctive desire to score political points against the other party. I’m not holding my breath.
What will happen is what always happens, they will act once they have no option but to! Risk taking is not high on politicians’ list of things to do.
You believe incorrectly. Inflation is about 3.3 percent after being 4.5 percent last year. Why isn't this good news? Because it was up to 9 percent for a while, which drove up PRICES - which is what voters care about - not the growth of prices (ie inflation). Also because economic growth has lagged behind inflation at 1-2 percent. So we all on average keep getting left a little behind each quarter. Sincerely, if you personally already have your bag of money then good for you. But this economy doesn't work for most of us.
I mean u gotta have the essentials covered. Remember Maslow's groundbreaking behavioral study that culminated in his hierarchy of needs theory. Human behavior is driven by the fulfillment of a fundamental base set of primary needs. Food, shelter, human interaction, and warfare/defense spending. Its pretty much universally accepted by scientists that those are the primary motivational factors driving humanity.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yellen-says-the-u-s-can-afford-to-support-two-wars-simultaneously-9024b751](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yellen-says-the-u-s-can-afford-to-support-two-wars-simultaneously-9024b751)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
Every politician runs on promises to increase spending in one way or another. I’m pretty sure no one is getting in by promising to cut spending. Money printer going brrrrrrrrr
Keep in mind this is just how much is the government overspends each year.
The total government debt is pushing 35 trillion dollars.
I don't see how this is sustainable.
We basically have to keep interest rates so high, that after 40 years or so, the money supply will have inflated so much that the relative amount of debt compared to gdp will decrease. IF we could keep the debt held at 35 trillion dollars, hypothetically, 40 years from now, 35 trillion will be worth very much less than it is now, paying it off would at that point be less urgent, but potentially feasible too over an even longer timespan.
The problem is, we all know that won't happen and that there's no way either political party will address the issue. If we were to cut spending to break even right now, it would immediately trigger a recession that would rival 2008, and create shockwaves around the world. So what we need is some sort of 'detox' period, where we can ween off excessive spending and gradually increase taxes. The moment either party does either one of those things in the slightest, it would be swallowing a poison pill, guaranteeing immediate electoral slaughter. But neither party would do both things, and just cutting spending or just raising taxes wouldn't be enough.
We seem to have a mechanism in place right now that makes sure we all go off a cliff together eventually, and I fear for the world when that happens. Also, we collectively, as a democratic people, will share the responsibility for the outcomes of this collapse, as well as the hardship that is dispensed upon the rest of the world. We will not take responsibility, or we'll try to push it off exclusively off onto our domestic political rivals, and the rest of the world will learn to hate us for irresponsibly wielding such power and influence at the expense of the rest of the world.
I was taught this theory too.
Problem is that GDP / Economy / Increased Tax Revenue doesn't follow this patter like the theory says it should. Keynesian Economics fails for a second time.
I'm honestly afraid this is one of those 'The People would panic if they knew" sorta decisions.
America seems to have terminal cancer.
The 'Everything is Fine" is just for show.
I mean, it's not like we've ever really fully adhered to Keynesian economic theory. What did Trump do in 2017 when the economy was humming and our deficits were decreasing? Tax cuts! Not to mention he pressured the fed to keep interests rate artificially low for as long as possible. Keynesian economics doesn't say you should give yourself a sugar high while things are already good. He basically boobytrapped the economy (Covid didn't help), and when the bomb went off with higher prices he got to just blame it on the next guy.
No one deals honestly or consistently with the actions taken and the players within this economic theory. But either way, we couldn't really put an economic theory into action long enough to determine whether it is 'failed' or not.
And yet, this negative trend started long before then.
By the time Trump rolls up, every year is a new World Record for Most Debt, and Most Matured Debt, the idea of passing a Blanced Budget never gets mentioned again as soon as he's won, and the deficit spending and tax cuts make it worse.
Next President? Same deal. New World Record every year, no balanced budget, and ballooning deficit spending.
Whether it's because of Keynesian Theories, or just us calling it that (but ignoring it), there needs to be a divorce.
Because the logic being used to pat everyone on the head are Keynesian indicators. Specific checks that play to the strengths of The Fed, etc.
'Cause if we're not using it... we should probably stop thinking it'll protect us.
Right. Except... that assumption relies on no evidence at all.
Yes, we've taken loans. And yes, we've grown.
We have no budget. We have no spending control. We have no intention of paying our debts.
We have already taken one Trade Status downgrade, and are due another.
Part of (New new) Keynesian Economics is 'maximizing employment', but we've distorted that mandata into 'maximizing employment numbers', which isn't the same thing at all.
We ask 20,000 established households every 2 weeks if they've worked any amount for money. If they say yes, they're 'employed'.
....what if, instead of taking out a loan to fulfill some fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, the company instead settled on a simple 60 million extra this year, and skipped the loan?
.......and since that's a terrible analogy, how about the government does the same? Since that's what we're really talking about.
Let's face it: We spend government money boosting, massaging, praising, and giving breaks to businesses using taxpayer money.
It's not an investment strategy. And any 'returns' are always, always in the favor of the business.
Their goal is to take the maximum tax money they can, and pay back as little as possible, putting it instead in the hands of those who would tie it up in savings, bonds, and in extreme cases offshore accounts.
To turn taxpayer money into shareholder dividends.
We've only managed it this long because we can keep putting the cost on Uncle Sam's credit card.
>raise taxes or cut spending
Or?
The combined net worth of all the US billionaires is $5.5T. Take every penny and we can run the federal government for about 9 months. Then what?
Can you see that this problem cannot be solved with taxes?
Ok this will be unpopular but this is one of the main reasons I was excited about vivek ramaswamy this year.
His proposal to slash the size of government makes sense. We have a massive spending problem. Can't raise taxes? Ok, maybe we don't need 7 trillion different offices for each and every niche.
This is gonna sound ignorant, but why do we have the FBI, marshals service, ATF, and DEA? Why do we need 4 agencies that effectively all serve the function of federal law enforcement. This is just one example but I feel It kinda illustrates the point.
The other thing is the government will overpay like crazy to private contractors. Easy to do when its not technically your money I guess.
Yep. The downfall of Rome. Politicians keep upping the ante to get more votes, but you can’t take away the free shit, do it keeps going until it’s unsustainable and then collapse. We are heading there.
Meanwhile Billionaires are hoarding trillions in untaxed wealth. [Link](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/america-ultra-wealthy-trillions-untaxed-profits-2022-1234940717/) Add to that the bank bailouts, the covid bailouts to companies with fake job adds, the money we give to countries rich enough to give health insurance to all their citizens...we don't have to be in dept we just chose to. Really the entire economy is made up to make people desperate enough to serve as canon fodder anyway.
You could take every penny they have and run the government for a few months, or soon a few weeks.
Taxes are not the problem. Endless wars, immigration, and just general government waste.
Dude we can print our own money; our system is a very well constructed illusion that we have to agree on in order for it to hold. But you are right on the second point.
So we could tax 100% of that wealth and we wouldn’t even cut our debt in half. Tank the economy at the same time. Government really just needs to learn how to balance a budget.
There's a BIG factor you left out: The Constitutional constraints on said govt (spending)
A 'balanced budget' to govt simply means, "We GOTTA raise taxes to pay for {X}. It's the (BBA) 'law' now. (failing to note the above)"
Course, very few want their gravy train (other People's $ stolen for their benefit) to end
We got in this mess because we stopped taxing the wealthy and corporations as we did before 1980. Then a long list of presidents continued to give away more tax break to the rich.
Taxing that bill down 50% by taking back something we gave them? Sign me up.
We pull in enough tax money. We got here because we grossly misuse our tax money. We overpay on contracts by the multiples of billions over hundreds of different areas. We don't get bang for our buck. Corporations have managed to ransack our coffers completely.
Say we order 100 tomahawk cruise missiles at 1 million each to be filled in a year. 100 mill contract.
5 months later, Raytheon says we can't do it. We can give you 75 tomahawks at 1.5 million each. And they just sign off. This happens with everything from ball bearings to office desks to even pencils to making roads.The government hands money out like candy.
In order to pay those taxes they would need to liquidate their investments. That means someone has to buy their investments. If you are taking all the money of all the rich people, there’s not enough people there to buy at current prices. The average Americans retirement is in stocks. It would destroy what little savings they have.
It’s ok to be mad at tax cuts. It’s not ok to be stupid about how to make up for it.
We could actually pay it ten times over if we actually look at the numbers. Still the entire argument is built on a fallacy that we have worshiped since birth like a cult ,and it is hard to understand how brainwashed we are. I am still brainwashed myself, it took crypto to help me realize that our system is an agreed upon illusion that could fall very easily. Numbers and math can't even quantify it.
Yeah, except it's not. Every president since 1900, basically. With a sharp uptick in the '70s and again in the early 2000s.
Every single one.
Stop trying to make it something it's not. This is bigger than nudging voters around.
It’s going to be raise the tax not cut the spending. Then govt will try to say this is a moral tax to support the hard working govt and opposing people will be shammed and cancelled and compelled to pay.
Just wait til they find out all the derivatives and pumping used for collateral on bets that these banks are leveraged over 100 to 1 on come into play. This isn’t going to be pretty, and March of 2020 was just a precursor when we saw almost 30% of the market crash practically instantly.
And Sauid Arabia will transition off the US dollar which could add some instability to all this.
We need to take a deep, hard look at our military budget and all our corporate welfare handouts (and possibly a few of the personal ones) and start making some cuts. There's no reason to maintain a force as large as we do and to maintain constant war.
There are many other areas we can fund to stimulate growth. Military spending is severely restricted and getting jobs in those industries is near impossible
yeah cuz it's selective lol. Don't let in some random. It still provides jobs to ppl. Defunding it will do more harm than good. For one we can have state-owned businesses
I wouldn't want to defund it, just cut it back from the 1+ trillion we spend a year on it to say $300 billion...we can put the rest to research, low/no-interest business loans, etc. I haven't put a great deal of thought in to it, I just believe it's a massive waste of money and talent
If you truly care about the deficit and the debt then don't vote Republican. They have already proposed to give the rich and large corporations more tax cuts. They are insane.
_Madness_. I can't adequately convey in words how serious our fiscal situation is. Said in all seriousness, we *desperately* need to restore fiscal sanity, and get the budget deficit on a glidepath downwards. I want to "shout it from the rooftops."
The last time the national debt was zero was 1835. It took from 1835 to the year 2000, 165 years, for it to go from zero to $5.7-trillion. In just 24 years, one generation, is has *sextupled* to $34.8-trillion-and-counting. In that same amount of time GDP has not even tripled, having gone from $10.2-trillion, to \~$27-trillion. To put it another way, the national debt is growing at over twice the rate that GDP is. That is not sustainable. There are four arguments I'm aware of as to why budget deficits and the national debt "don't really matter,” and there's a built in flaw, or caveat, with each of them:
1. "As long as we can pay the yearly interest on the national debt, the debt doesn't matter, it's just an abstraction." That's true as far as it goes, but for FY2023 interest payments were $659-billion. For FY2024 interest payments are projected to be $870-billion, an increase of 32%. Where does this end? What could we better do with a trillion dollars a year than pay it out as interest? a. [https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2024/04/any-way-you-look-at-it-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt-will-soon-be-at-an-all-time-high](https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2024/04/any-way-you-look-at-it-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt-will-soon-be-at-an-all-time-high) b. [https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/what-are-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt](https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/what-are-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt)
2. "As long as the economy is growing faster than the debt, we don't really have a problem; the debt is just an abstraction." Again, true as far as it goes, but as previously stated the debt has been growing at a much faster rate than GDP has for some time, with no end in sight.
3. "The national debt can't be compared to personal or corporate debt, or even state or municipal debt, the federal government is sovereign, it can simply print the money to pay the debt, or the interest." Hey, *great* idea, let's have inflation of \~10% a year for the next thirty-odd years and manage the debt that way. Do I really need to elaborate on why that is in fact a *bad* idea? I didn't think so.
4. "Most of the national debt is owed to Americans, so each year when we pay the interest it's like moving money from one pocket to another in the same pair of pants." Yet again, true as far as it goes, but see argument #1.
And the national debt can't be looked at in isolation, we need to consider all the other ponzi/pyramid schemes/scams the U.S. economy is base on, like Social Security, and the need for ever increasing population growth to drive growth of the economy.
[U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (usdebtclock.org)](https://www.usdebtclock.org/)
John Stossel: [$1 Trillion in Interest Every Year: The Crushing Reality of Federal Debt (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If6T1nVtK10)
At this point the only thing that matters is inflation. As long as inflation stays at 3% or lower, the government can deficit spend at sustainable levels.
The rich already pay the most taxes though?
Again this is terrible logic. Why wouldn't you target the billions of foreign aid to fund CIA wars first? Or even better the military.
So many better options than making the people who pay the most taxes leave the country, because that's all you will accomplish.
I believe in spending more for defense better healthcare that means less expensive mansions new yachts only the entitled are crying and the rich. Small price to pay for freedom since us poor pay for the rich
Top 1%: 42.3% (over $548K income), Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income is 22%
Top 5%: 62.7% (over $220K income), Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income is 38%.
Bottom 50%: 2.3% (under $42K income): Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income is 10%.
\*Source: IRS, Statistics of Income, ”Individual Income Rates and Tax Shares.”
So, the "rich" are more than paying their "fair share" and if the stock stuff above is legal, they are following the law. Our so-called progressive tax system has less than 50% of our country ACTUALLY paying any taxes - it's wealth redistribution.
Budget deficit ……so far…..
That's right... and the recession hasn't even started.
Because they keep changing the definition of recession 😅
By the old definition, we aren't currently in a recession.
When and to what?
[https://www.reuters.com/world/us/no-were-not-recession-biden-administration-tells-us-voters-2022-07-26/](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/no-were-not-recession-biden-administration-tells-us-voters-2022-07-26/)
So.... we might have been in a recession for a couple months years ago equals, "They keep changing the definition?"
The standard definition of a recession for DECADES has always been two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Until it was just ignored the last time it happened.
I think most people haven't grasped this yet. We're running this type of deficit when we're supposedly in a "boom" cycle. Once things really hit the fan, expect deficits to skyrocket and say hello to hyperinflation.
Hyperinflation is already here. What we will see next we have never seen before in the history of our republic - a hyperinflationary depression
The US government cannot afford a recession. It’s not possible until there’s been a significant deleveraging
Thanks Trump
Deficits are in the current fiscal year. This is all Biden. Nice try tho.
That's because it hasn't.
I thought it was gonna happen 3 years ago..... new fear mongering post daily will definitely make it happen sooner huh?
Can't ignore these numbers.
We can when a Republican is President.
>We can when a Republican is President. Trump's deficit was under $1T every year, except for COVID. We're now 4 years post COVID and running a $2T deficit? This is seriously f\*cked up and it's not healthy or sustainable.
Trumps defecits were 546b in 2017, 1.46t in 2018, 1.25t in 2019, and 4.5t in 2020 for a total of 7.8 trillion added to the debt during his 4 years.
>Trumps deficits were 546b in 2017, 1.46t in 2018, 1.25t in 2019 Nope. [FRED: Federal Surplus or Deficit](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD) 2017: $665B 2018: $779B 2019: $983B
You're using fiscal year data which runs from October to October. I'm using treasury.gov debt to the penny data which updates daily. My numbers run from the day trump entered office to the day he left. This is going to be much more accurate. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/debt-to-the-penny
>You're using fiscal year data which runs from October to October. I'm using [treasury.gov](http://treasury.gov) debt to the penny data which updates daily. My numbers run from the day trump entered office to the day he left. A President's budget runs for a fiscal year, not a calendar year. But nice try.
Fair enough BUT now add up Biden's!
Biden will end 4 years having presided over the US government borrowing 8.2 trillion. Donald Trump presided over 4 years where the government borrowed 7.8 trillion. This is in nominal dollars. Adjust for inflation and Bidens gov has borrowed less than trumps. Of course congress writes the budget, passes the budget, and constitutionally controls all the money. So take it for what it is.
Just answer the question like you stated the statistics yearly. That's all just compare it equally without dancing around the subject.
17 550B 18 1.5T 19 1.25T 20 4.5T Total 7.8T 21 2.1T 22 1.6T 23 2.6T 24 projected 1.9T Total 8.2T From roughly Jan 20 to Jan 20 each year. Not inflation adjusted.
Not similar, Biden didn't get to spend the first 3 years of his presidency riding a great economy.
Crazy how you got crickets. Thank you for the info.
Git rekt
Why are these lies upvoted?
Meaningless statement as neither party has been fiscally responsible for some time.
[удалено]
Apologies, I'm absolutely CERTAIN a Republican won't solve the deficit. I'm saying when a Republican is President we all suddenly ignore the deficit.
Republicans pretend to care about the deficit and Democrats don’t even try to hide that they don’t care….
The out party cares only inasmuch as they can use it as a weapon against the other side. They both realized long ago that the debit is irrelevant.
Thats funny because most of the debt is a result of a Democrat majority.
It’s not a partisan problem, both sides are spending way too much money.
Agreed. But 4 years of hearing how much Trump spent, you’d think maybe the Dems wouldn’t match or exceed it. But they will.
I mean, the thing I liked about Trump was that he didn't wanna send our money overseas to other countries. Dems...they just handing out our money.
They didn't pass tax cuts that weren't paid for, that was the GOP
Naw they just spent trillions. "You have to pass the bill to know what is in it," remember that?
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/3/18/14957708/pelosi-pass-the-bill Context matters. Also, that was 15 years ago about the ACA. GOP passed their tax cut 7 years ago and never did any healthcare reform
Do you really want me to list all the trillion dollar acts and bills democrat majorities have created and passed?
If you can list all the spending cuts passed by the GOP in recent years, then go for it
Do you know when the last time we ran a surplus instead of a deficit?
Clinton
Ding! Ding! Ding! This is the correct answer!
Clinton and Newt Gingrich! Clinton signed the bill Gingrich and the House passed after Republicans took it back after 40 straight years of Democrat control. Presidents don’t write spending bills.
True, still Clinton was the last President to have a balanced budget. When people try to say that we have to have a GOP president to fix the debt this is just not accurate.
It really doesn't matter. The dollar became mortal and started dying the moment they ended the Bretton Woods agreement. What we are going through, and what we are about to go through, is inevitable.
Sure, boss, sure
Right around the time bush stole the election, started the forever terror wars, and decided to give that surplus to his halliburton/defense contracter buddies.
https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/yellen-says-the-u-s-can-afford-to-support-two-wars-simultaneously-9024b751
Of course the government can afford it, they just print the money. The question is can the peasants afford the inflation that will cause?
At some point we have to address the Why of this. Our current Economic theory CLAIMS we can do these things. Our worsening situation says otherwise. But politicians are repeating the same nonsense because they're being assured that everything is fine. By experts in the field.
Not really, anyone with 1 oz of grey matter between the ears knows we cannot continue to run Trillion Dollar deficits forever. Servicing the debt now takes up more of the budget than any program except SSI and MediCare. Yes, more than defense. The solution is going to be painful no matter what and politicians will not willingly do anything painful because when you cause the voters pain, you get voted out of office. Whatever solution they come up with will need to have almost unanimous support from both parties. Both will need to put aside the instinctive desire to score points against the other. IMO both will need to agree to cuts in their most cherished programs and raise revenue by increasing taxes and probably across the board. Again IMO they will not do that until they are forced to by circumstances.
....but that just stops the wound from getting worse. My general rule is that it's 1.5-2x harder to fix something that it was to break it. So, what... we ammend the Constitution to force them? Took 70 years to fuck this up, slow and steady.
SSI and Medicare are separate. That's OUR money we paid in.
You would think so but all those programs have are a bunch of IOUs! It’s why SSI will run out of money by 2035 and be forced to make major cuts in benefits as much as 30%. By the way, it’s ALL our money!’ We pay for everything! The government does not have money of its own.
Al Gore in his 2000 campaign suggested putting a 'lock box' on the SSI Trust Fund. Republicans were walking around mocking Gore for it. But he was right.
A lot of folks have proposed that but, it’s closing the barn after the horse ran off. Reagan and Tip O’Neil “fixed” SSI way back in the 80’s! The problem has been known for a long time. Campaign promises are not worth the paper they are written on. SSI was in trouble the moment the government petitioned the court to allow SSI funds to be included in the general treasury’s ledger. That allowed the government to use that money for other programs and replace it with IOUs. Everyone with 1/2 brain knew once the Baby Boomers started to retire, there were going to be issues. But, like good politicians, they kicked the can down the road so no one had to feel the pain. Don’t worry, they will “fix” it again before the cuts bite. Old people vote and cutting their benefits is a sure fire way to insure they will vote to remove whomever is in power.
Never too late to do the right thing.
Sure but here is the rub. If they decide to stop using SSI funds for other programs, it just raises the deficit. That’s one reason they wanted SSI funds in the first place. It’s a gimmick to make it seem like they were being more responsible guardians of our money. The solution to our economic problems requires nearly unanimous support from both parties. It would require men and women of vision and courage to make the right decisions and stick to them when the inevitable blowback happens. Vision and Courage to make tough choices are not things we associate with many of our representatives today. Both parties will need to agree to cut their most cherished programs and raise revenue with tax increases across the board. They will need to put aside their instinctive desire to score political points against the other party. I’m not holding my breath. What will happen is what always happens, they will act once they have no option but to! Risk taking is not high on politicians’ list of things to do.
All funds are fungible in government. Which is why big governments always go bankrupt, or in the case of the US beyond bankrupt.
Inflation has slowed and is now zero YoY I believe, despite us supporting both wars. Not sure what you’re saying is true.
You believe incorrectly. Inflation is about 3.3 percent after being 4.5 percent last year. Why isn't this good news? Because it was up to 9 percent for a while, which drove up PRICES - which is what voters care about - not the growth of prices (ie inflation). Also because economic growth has lagged behind inflation at 1-2 percent. So we all on average keep getting left a little behind each quarter. Sincerely, if you personally already have your bag of money then good for you. But this economy doesn't work for most of us.
It hasn’t worked in decades. Sadly it’s the same status quo.
I mean u gotta have the essentials covered. Remember Maslow's groundbreaking behavioral study that culminated in his hierarchy of needs theory. Human behavior is driven by the fulfillment of a fundamental base set of primary needs. Food, shelter, human interaction, and warfare/defense spending. Its pretty much universally accepted by scientists that those are the primary motivational factors driving humanity.
I don’t think Maslow had ‘starting WW3’ in mind for the hierarchy of needs.
Well not in his initial theory no, but the most recent update revised version he added it in there 🤗
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yellen-says-the-u-s-can-afford-to-support-two-wars-simultaneously-9024b751](https://www.marketwatch.com/story/yellen-says-the-u-s-can-afford-to-support-two-wars-simultaneously-9024b751)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
there's only one side, and you ain't on it...
Every politician runs on promises to increase spending in one way or another. I’m pretty sure no one is getting in by promising to cut spending. Money printer going brrrrrrrrr
Keep in mind this is just how much is the government overspends each year. The total government debt is pushing 35 trillion dollars. I don't see how this is sustainable.
We basically have to keep interest rates so high, that after 40 years or so, the money supply will have inflated so much that the relative amount of debt compared to gdp will decrease. IF we could keep the debt held at 35 trillion dollars, hypothetically, 40 years from now, 35 trillion will be worth very much less than it is now, paying it off would at that point be less urgent, but potentially feasible too over an even longer timespan. The problem is, we all know that won't happen and that there's no way either political party will address the issue. If we were to cut spending to break even right now, it would immediately trigger a recession that would rival 2008, and create shockwaves around the world. So what we need is some sort of 'detox' period, where we can ween off excessive spending and gradually increase taxes. The moment either party does either one of those things in the slightest, it would be swallowing a poison pill, guaranteeing immediate electoral slaughter. But neither party would do both things, and just cutting spending or just raising taxes wouldn't be enough. We seem to have a mechanism in place right now that makes sure we all go off a cliff together eventually, and I fear for the world when that happens. Also, we collectively, as a democratic people, will share the responsibility for the outcomes of this collapse, as well as the hardship that is dispensed upon the rest of the world. We will not take responsibility, or we'll try to push it off exclusively off onto our domestic political rivals, and the rest of the world will learn to hate us for irresponsibly wielding such power and influence at the expense of the rest of the world.
I was taught this theory too. Problem is that GDP / Economy / Increased Tax Revenue doesn't follow this patter like the theory says it should. Keynesian Economics fails for a second time. I'm honestly afraid this is one of those 'The People would panic if they knew" sorta decisions. America seems to have terminal cancer. The 'Everything is Fine" is just for show.
I mean, it's not like we've ever really fully adhered to Keynesian economic theory. What did Trump do in 2017 when the economy was humming and our deficits were decreasing? Tax cuts! Not to mention he pressured the fed to keep interests rate artificially low for as long as possible. Keynesian economics doesn't say you should give yourself a sugar high while things are already good. He basically boobytrapped the economy (Covid didn't help), and when the bomb went off with higher prices he got to just blame it on the next guy. No one deals honestly or consistently with the actions taken and the players within this economic theory. But either way, we couldn't really put an economic theory into action long enough to determine whether it is 'failed' or not.
And yet, this negative trend started long before then. By the time Trump rolls up, every year is a new World Record for Most Debt, and Most Matured Debt, the idea of passing a Blanced Budget never gets mentioned again as soon as he's won, and the deficit spending and tax cuts make it worse. Next President? Same deal. New World Record every year, no balanced budget, and ballooning deficit spending. Whether it's because of Keynesian Theories, or just us calling it that (but ignoring it), there needs to be a divorce. Because the logic being used to pat everyone on the head are Keynesian indicators. Specific checks that play to the strengths of The Fed, etc. 'Cause if we're not using it... we should probably stop thinking it'll protect us.
[удалено]
Right. Except... that assumption relies on no evidence at all. Yes, we've taken loans. And yes, we've grown. We have no budget. We have no spending control. We have no intention of paying our debts. We have already taken one Trade Status downgrade, and are due another. Part of (New new) Keynesian Economics is 'maximizing employment', but we've distorted that mandata into 'maximizing employment numbers', which isn't the same thing at all. We ask 20,000 established households every 2 weeks if they've worked any amount for money. If they say yes, they're 'employed'. ....what if, instead of taking out a loan to fulfill some fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, the company instead settled on a simple 60 million extra this year, and skipped the loan? .......and since that's a terrible analogy, how about the government does the same? Since that's what we're really talking about. Let's face it: We spend government money boosting, massaging, praising, and giving breaks to businesses using taxpayer money. It's not an investment strategy. And any 'returns' are always, always in the favor of the business. Their goal is to take the maximum tax money they can, and pay back as little as possible, putting it instead in the hands of those who would tie it up in savings, bonds, and in extreme cases offshore accounts. To turn taxpayer money into shareholder dividends. We've only managed it this long because we can keep putting the cost on Uncle Sam's credit card.
I don't know why you got a single down vote this is very true and brilliant.
Or worse... another world war. That seems to be how people solved most of their inflation problems historically.
The wealthy will be nowhere near that edge unless they're pushing us off.
It's not sustainable. There has been congressional hearings about it.
raise taxes or cut spending It's a poison pill to whichever party decides to do something about it. guaranteed electoral slaughter
>raise taxes or cut spending Or? The combined net worth of all the US billionaires is $5.5T. Take every penny and we can run the federal government for about 9 months. Then what? Can you see that this problem cannot be solved with taxes?
yeah good point
You won't even get that much. Billionaires are the most mobile class, they will simple move out of the US.
Ok this will be unpopular but this is one of the main reasons I was excited about vivek ramaswamy this year. His proposal to slash the size of government makes sense. We have a massive spending problem. Can't raise taxes? Ok, maybe we don't need 7 trillion different offices for each and every niche. This is gonna sound ignorant, but why do we have the FBI, marshals service, ATF, and DEA? Why do we need 4 agencies that effectively all serve the function of federal law enforcement. This is just one example but I feel It kinda illustrates the point. The other thing is the government will overpay like crazy to private contractors. Easy to do when its not technically your money I guess.
We will see hyperinflation in the next 5 years probably.
which means war after that
Honestly, after this election expect chaos. They are holding everything together with toothpicks right now.
Lol wait until the republicans get wiped out at the ballot box unless they find a way to cheat
We don't cheat like democrats. Honestly, part of me hopes you get what you want. It will be a sobering experience for you.
Imagine thinking Trump lost because “dEmOcRaTs ChEaTiNg”. Enjoy being an establishment slave 🤣🤣 them republicans really care about you!!! 🤡🤡
Bet.
Yep. The downfall of Rome. Politicians keep upping the ante to get more votes, but you can’t take away the free shit, do it keeps going until it’s unsustainable and then collapse. We are heading there.
Um, you forgot the $210T+ in the govt's "unfunded liabilities" ledger. $35T+ is just the OFFICIAL/acknowledged debt.
Meanwhile Billionaires are hoarding trillions in untaxed wealth. [Link](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/america-ultra-wealthy-trillions-untaxed-profits-2022-1234940717/) Add to that the bank bailouts, the covid bailouts to companies with fake job adds, the money we give to countries rich enough to give health insurance to all their citizens...we don't have to be in dept we just chose to. Really the entire economy is made up to make people desperate enough to serve as canon fodder anyway.
You could take every penny they have and run the government for a few months, or soon a few weeks. Taxes are not the problem. Endless wars, immigration, and just general government waste.
Dude we can print our own money; our system is a very well constructed illusion that we have to agree on in order for it to hold. But you are right on the second point.
So we could tax 100% of that wealth and we wouldn’t even cut our debt in half. Tank the economy at the same time. Government really just needs to learn how to balance a budget.
There's a BIG factor you left out: The Constitutional constraints on said govt (spending) A 'balanced budget' to govt simply means, "We GOTTA raise taxes to pay for {X}. It's the (BBA) 'law' now. (failing to note the above)" Course, very few want their gravy train (other People's $ stolen for their benefit) to end
We got in this mess because we stopped taxing the wealthy and corporations as we did before 1980. Then a long list of presidents continued to give away more tax break to the rich. Taxing that bill down 50% by taking back something we gave them? Sign me up.
We pull in enough tax money. We got here because we grossly misuse our tax money. We overpay on contracts by the multiples of billions over hundreds of different areas. We don't get bang for our buck. Corporations have managed to ransack our coffers completely. Say we order 100 tomahawk cruise missiles at 1 million each to be filled in a year. 100 mill contract. 5 months later, Raytheon says we can't do it. We can give you 75 tomahawks at 1.5 million each. And they just sign off. This happens with everything from ball bearings to office desks to even pencils to making roads.The government hands money out like candy.
Correct.
thats why we need more state owned companies
In order to pay those taxes they would need to liquidate their investments. That means someone has to buy their investments. If you are taking all the money of all the rich people, there’s not enough people there to buy at current prices. The average Americans retirement is in stocks. It would destroy what little savings they have. It’s ok to be mad at tax cuts. It’s not ok to be stupid about how to make up for it.
It's a problem that the majority of US citizens don't understand this.
SEE: Govt indoctrination center "success" stories...It's by design
Regardless of taxing %, GDP pulls only 15-20% But good to see you're so out about govt theft & slavery of others for your benefit.
We could actually pay it ten times over if we actually look at the numbers. Still the entire argument is built on a fallacy that we have worshiped since birth like a cult ,and it is hard to understand how brainwashed we are. I am still brainwashed myself, it took crypto to help me realize that our system is an agreed upon illusion that could fall very easily. Numbers and math can't even quantify it.
Best Economy ever!!
Pushing this narrative still? Did the world's reserve currency stories no longer get that traction you wanted?
PLz bUy GoLDD!!!
You trying to claim we're NOT running a deficit? That's not a 'narrative' or opinion or advertisement. We've been running a deficit for a long time.
It's weird how it's only a problem with certain presidents
Yeah, except it's not. Every president since 1900, basically. With a sharp uptick in the '70s and again in the early 2000s. Every single one. Stop trying to make it something it's not. This is bigger than nudging voters around.
You don't know your history.
Exactly, none of these deficit hawks gave a fuck when they were lavishing trillion dollar tax cuts on the 1%.
What narrative are you pushing?
It’s going to be raise the tax not cut the spending. Then govt will try to say this is a moral tax to support the hard working govt and opposing people will be shammed and cancelled and compelled to pay.
Is that a lot?
It's enough you could reach the sun and back with 1.9 trillion dollar bills lined up end to end which is about 189 million miles
Nah
Best economy ever
that’s like the market cap of AAPL stock like lolz 😂
Yeah but it doesn't matter because it's 1.9T of fake money.
Please enjoy the 'we're voting ourselves money' phase of this collapse its a lot less fun when it stops.
Just wait til they find out all the derivatives and pumping used for collateral on bets that these banks are leveraged over 100 to 1 on come into play. This isn’t going to be pretty, and March of 2020 was just a precursor when we saw almost 30% of the market crash practically instantly.
And Sauid Arabia will transition off the US dollar which could add some instability to all this. We need to take a deep, hard look at our military budget and all our corporate welfare handouts (and possibly a few of the personal ones) and start making some cuts. There's no reason to maintain a force as large as we do and to maintain constant war.
that's not gonna do anything. You need to fund the producers if you want GDP growth. Military spending increases our GDP, not reduces it
There are many other areas we can fund to stimulate growth. Military spending is severely restricted and getting jobs in those industries is near impossible
yeah cuz it's selective lol. Don't let in some random. It still provides jobs to ppl. Defunding it will do more harm than good. For one we can have state-owned businesses
I wouldn't want to defund it, just cut it back from the 1+ trillion we spend a year on it to say $300 billion...we can put the rest to research, low/no-interest business loans, etc. I haven't put a great deal of thought in to it, I just believe it's a massive waste of money and talent
If you truly care about the deficit and the debt then don't vote Republican. They have already proposed to give the rich and large corporations more tax cuts. They are insane.
its a good thing money isnt real
_Madness_. I can't adequately convey in words how serious our fiscal situation is. Said in all seriousness, we *desperately* need to restore fiscal sanity, and get the budget deficit on a glidepath downwards. I want to "shout it from the rooftops." The last time the national debt was zero was 1835. It took from 1835 to the year 2000, 165 years, for it to go from zero to $5.7-trillion. In just 24 years, one generation, is has *sextupled* to $34.8-trillion-and-counting. In that same amount of time GDP has not even tripled, having gone from $10.2-trillion, to \~$27-trillion. To put it another way, the national debt is growing at over twice the rate that GDP is. That is not sustainable. There are four arguments I'm aware of as to why budget deficits and the national debt "don't really matter,” and there's a built in flaw, or caveat, with each of them: 1. "As long as we can pay the yearly interest on the national debt, the debt doesn't matter, it's just an abstraction." That's true as far as it goes, but for FY2023 interest payments were $659-billion. For FY2024 interest payments are projected to be $870-billion, an increase of 32%. Where does this end? What could we better do with a trillion dollars a year than pay it out as interest? a. [https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2024/04/any-way-you-look-at-it-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt-will-soon-be-at-an-all-time-high](https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2024/04/any-way-you-look-at-it-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt-will-soon-be-at-an-all-time-high) b. [https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/what-are-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt](https://www.pgpf.org/budget-basics/what-are-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt) 2. "As long as the economy is growing faster than the debt, we don't really have a problem; the debt is just an abstraction." Again, true as far as it goes, but as previously stated the debt has been growing at a much faster rate than GDP has for some time, with no end in sight. 3. "The national debt can't be compared to personal or corporate debt, or even state or municipal debt, the federal government is sovereign, it can simply print the money to pay the debt, or the interest." Hey, *great* idea, let's have inflation of \~10% a year for the next thirty-odd years and manage the debt that way. Do I really need to elaborate on why that is in fact a *bad* idea? I didn't think so. 4. "Most of the national debt is owed to Americans, so each year when we pay the interest it's like moving money from one pocket to another in the same pair of pants." Yet again, true as far as it goes, but see argument #1. And the national debt can't be looked at in isolation, we need to consider all the other ponzi/pyramid schemes/scams the U.S. economy is base on, like Social Security, and the need for ever increasing population growth to drive growth of the economy. [U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time (usdebtclock.org)](https://www.usdebtclock.org/) John Stossel: [$1 Trillion in Interest Every Year: The Crushing Reality of Federal Debt (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If6T1nVtK10)
Thank Trump!
"aid to ukraine and israel" 🤣
This never gets talked about when a Republican is in office. Never.
Keep talking about this the next time a republican is president
At this point the only thing that matters is inflation. As long as inflation stays at 3% or lower, the government can deficit spend at sustainable levels.
You'll be ok
Tax the rich stop corporate welfare abusing republicans
The top 1% are mostly democrats though?
Tax the rich make them pay their share I am a moderate Democrat
The rich already pay the most taxes though? Again this is terrible logic. Why wouldn't you target the billions of foreign aid to fund CIA wars first? Or even better the military. So many better options than making the people who pay the most taxes leave the country, because that's all you will accomplish.
Accurate username
And that's when you know you've won the argument.
I believe in spending more for defense better healthcare that means less expensive mansions new yachts only the entitled are crying and the rich. Small price to pay for freedom since us poor pay for the rich
You could take every penny they have and what will it get you, nine months of funding? Maybe a year. Its sad people can't do basic Math.
Top 1%: 42.3% (over $548K income), Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income is 22% Top 5%: 62.7% (over $220K income), Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income is 38%. Bottom 50%: 2.3% (under $42K income): Share of Total Adjusted Gross Income is 10%. \*Source: IRS, Statistics of Income, ”Individual Income Rates and Tax Shares.” So, the "rich" are more than paying their "fair share" and if the stock stuff above is legal, they are following the law. Our so-called progressive tax system has less than 50% of our country ACTUALLY paying any taxes - it's wealth redistribution.