• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DEBT SPIRAL: Interest costs on U.S. debt to exceed economic growth by 2045💸💸💸

eohrnberger said:
Those accusation of 'treason, lies, and openly criminal behavior' only being the propaganda hoax and smear campaigns from the Dem's MSM.
Since we can't trust what the Dem's MSM propagandists are pushing in their political activism, show me court convictions, and not the court of public opinion.
Click to expand...

Are you one of the remaining Trump supporters who is still unable to admit that Trump lies?​
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Are you one of the remaining Trump supporters who is still unable to admit that Trump lies?​
Click to expand...
I am on record here, for a long time already, the this lying accusation is hopelessly subjective.

Even earlier than this post:
eohrnberger said:
Or so made out to be by the already proven dishonest politically biased media.

I'm on record here for a long time already with the observation that one person's political rhetoric is another person's lies, and that the differentiation between the two is strictly subjective, bent to that person's political confirmation bias.

A correct and accurate observation of reality.
. . .
Click to expand...
 
eohrnberger said:
I am on record here, for a long time already, the this lying accusation is hopelessly subjective.

Even earlier than this post:
Click to expand...

When someone says two mutually exclusive things, it's entirely subjective if one of them is a lie?

wild
 
rahl said:
Debatable, but this is still a goalpost move.
Click to expand...
Naa.

rahl said:
No, an argument you made up to argue against. Which is why I pointed it out.

No. It’s me calling you on your strawman.
Click to expand...

First you call laying the cause of increased inflation a lie.
rahl said:
It’s hilarious that 3 years later this stupidity is still being peddled 😂
Click to expand...
And then, when challenged that Biden's spending didn't elevate inflation you call the argument a strawman.

Seems pretty obvious that you aren't someone who can argue / discuss honestly.
Have a nice day. You are dismissed.
 
eohrnberger said:
Naa.



First you call laying the cause of increased inflation a lie.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t the cause of inflation. Supply chain issues due to Covid was.
eohrnberger said:
And then, when challenged that Biden's spending didn't elevate inflation you call the argument a strawman.
Click to expand...
Because I didn’t make that claim.
eohrnberger said:
Seems pretty obvious that you aren't someone who can argue / discuss honestly.
Click to expand...
When you make shit up to argue against, I will call you on it.
eohrnberger said:
Have a nice day. You are dismissed.
Click to expand...
You aren’t able to dismiss me lol.
 
rahl said:
It wasn’t the cause of inflation. Supply chain issues due to Covid was.
Click to expand...
Biden's spending wasn't the singular cause of inflation. To this I agree, and this wasn't my position.
Biden's spending made inflation worse, this probably true.
Had Biden not gone on his wild spending spree, inflation probably would have been less, this also probably true.

rahl said:
Because I didn’t make that claim.
Click to expand...
You just call people with the opinion that Biden's spending spree made inflation worse liars, when it is quite probably most accurate.
 
eohrnberger said:
Biden's spending wasn't the singular cause of inflation. To this I agree, and this wasn't my position.
Biden's spending made inflation worse, this probably true.
Click to expand...
Debatable.
eohrnberger said:
Had Biden not gone on his wild spending spree, inflation probably would have been less, this also probably true.
Click to expand...
US inflation was less than most of the world and we recovered faster than the rest of the world, because Biden and his administration aren’t economic retards like Trump and his administration.
eohrnberger said:
You just call people with the opinion that Biden's spending spree made inflation worse liars, when it is quite probably most accurate.
Click to expand...
We know it isn’t accurate.
 
rahl said:
Debatable.

US inflation was less than most of the world and we recovered faster than the rest of the world,
Click to expand...
Nice to know, not in dispute, but also has absolutely no bearing and absolutely no impact on my statement.

rahl said:
because Biden and his administration aren’t economic retards like Trump and his administration.
Click to expand...
Ignored.

rahl said:
We know it isn’t accurate.
Click to expand...
Inconsistent response, just previously in this very post you called it 'Debatable', here you are calling it 'inaccurate'.
Kinda squishy a position, isn't it?
 
BirdinHand said:
And Trump is going to add TRILLIONS to the debt with tax cuts for the rich and corporations.


So much winning 😂😂😂
Click to expand...
Dont forget the slowing of the economy due to idioptic tariff wars which will reduce govt revenues
 
rahl said:
I accept your concession
Click to expand...
No concession given.
This exchange has arrived to the point where you just keep repeating the same things over, which has become boring and non-interesting.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on those points. 🤷‍♂️
 
lmao!!! $5 trillion in federal inlays, and the leftoids want government to get even more money, as long as it doesn't come from them.

Here's an idea leftoids, ask your local/state governments to provide you with the excessive services you want and pay taxes accordingly to cover them. Stop trying to lean on Washington for it.
 
trumptman said:
Debt=revenue=stolen future growth. Stealing from your future growth is fine if you are compounding it in some fashion. Stealing from your future income as a doctor to repay your student loans is great since you'll be earning far more as a doctor than you would would as a barista.
Click to expand...
That's an insightful extension of the core idea. My point in saying 'debt=revenue' was to emphasize the fundamental accounting reality: one entity's liability (debt) is simultaneously another entity's asset, which generates a revenue stream (interest payments) or represents a claim on future income. It highlights that debt doesn't exist in a vacuum; it facilitates transactions and creates financial assets for lenders/investors at the same moment it creates obligations for borrowers.

The assertion that it results in stolen future growth depends on how money is spent. Some expenditures will facilitate future growth some expenditures will prevent or decrease future losses and some will do neither. But the idea that debt results in futures losses is an overly simplistic view of a complex system.
trumptman said:
It's not one to one. That present dollar removes future growth and requires additional debt to repay it.
Click to expand...

Additional debt=additional revenue.

Loans create deposits.

You're looking only at the debt side, alleging that debt removes future growth despite the fact that the US has been in debt in all but a handful of years and each successive generation have benefitted from past public sector spending. Further, every significant attempt to repay debt, 6 different periods, has resulted in 6 depressions.

Why? Because reductions in debt result in reductions in dollar assets of the public.

That said, your argument isn't without merit, the government must take care not to overspend or under tax as both contribute to the government's need to sell more debt, which result in more revenue in the private sector, which if not managed carefully could overwhelm the private sectors capacity to produce. Especially now given tariffs.

trumptman said:
his is a partial understanding. There isn't increased demand. There is devalued currency pursuing the same amount of demand. If you had a 1000 people buying 1000 cars and spending $10 million and "suddenly" the money supply doubled to $20 million, those same 1000 people would need those same 1000 cars but the value of what they are using to purchase them in terms of currency was halved so they'd end up paying double aka inflation.
Click to expand...

There's a few flaws in your argument....Let's take your example of cars.

Here is the current days of inventory of each car brand:

Screenshot 2025-04-21 204058.webp


If the demand for cars increased sharply as people have more money to spend on them, what would happen? The days supply of inventory would decline. This would spur production. Why would this result higher prices? There's about 2000 days of total inventory represented on that chart. Inventory that's already been built, inventory that is likely been financed with private debt.

It wouldn't, at least as a rule. In order for car prices to go higher 2 things would have to happen.

1. The days supply of cars would have to get much closer to or at zero.

2. The capacity to create more cars would have to be constrained by supply constraints.

It's worth noting, that if people got a sharp cut in taxes and spending were the same, year-over-year, the result would be greater demand in the economy (causing shortages and increases in prices), all without increasing dollars in the economy.
 
trumptman said:
I'm going to cut the "and so it follows" since the claims above were only partially understood by you. It is safe to basically limit future debt and try to grow our way out of it. However right now we aren't like a middle aged guy trying to drop 20lbs. We are like a "My 600lb life" patient trying to get to where we can even survive the procedure which would still need to be pretty extreme.
Click to expand...

And here is a chart for you:

fredgraph.png


This chart more accurately reflects the accounting at the national level.
trumptman said:
Just using round numbers, if we weren't borrowing 5% of GPD per year, and our GDP growth is 2.5-ish% what do you think our real rate of growth of GPD would be minus that borrowing? If your thinking it like mine you are likely thinking it would be... negative.
Click to expand...

If generally accepted inflation is around 2% and you thought a target of 3% growth were a good target, than deficit spending of less than 5% (all other things being equal, e.g. exports-imports, private sector borrowing-private sector repayments etc.) would result in negitive growth. But, it's rarely that simple, there are many buffers in the economy (like the auto example above) that obscure the reality of what's happening at the time it is happening and can take time to manifest.

Thus, to answer your question, a balanced budget (borrowing and repayments at the same level), would quickly result in economic contraction. But, as I said, this can take time. Clinton's surplus resulted in a loss of government spending equal to about 6% of GDP, yet the economy grew until the bottom finally fell out in 2008 fueled by private sector debt. Which is illustrated here if we zoom in.

fredgraph.png



trumptman said:
Most people don't "get" this so shrinking it real small and round if that helps. You started with $100 of income this year but borrowed $5. The return on that $5 generated $2 more dollars of income so you ended the year with $102 but also $5 in debt. If you run this out for years you see the problem. You're taking on more debt and can't seem to generate more growth than that debt. Hence debt spiral.
Click to expand...

Your example fails because that's not how things work. You likely believe that the governments source of money is taxation. That is, for the US government to have money it must take it from someone thought taxation (or other method). In fact, this is the opposite. In order for people to pay taxes, the government must create and spend money.

Taxation removes some of the money spent, the remainder, the 5% is left in the private sector economy. Taxation is about influencing the quantity of dollars in the private sector, not about funding.

Think about it like this, what came first, the dollar or taxation? Answer, the dollar. People can have dollars before the government creates and circulates them.
 
Econ4every1 said:
Your example fails because that's not how things work. You likely believe that the governments source of money is taxation. That is, for the US government to have money it must take it from someone thought taxation (or other method). In fact, this is the opposite. In order for people to pay taxes, the government must create and spend money.

Taxation removes some of the money spent, the remainder, the 5% is left in the private sector economy. Taxation is about influencing the quantity of dollars in the private sector, not about funding.

Think about it like this, what came first, the dollar or taxation? Answer, the dollar. People can have dollars before the government creates and circulates them.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I never thought about it like that.

We really need widespread crypto adoption. It can't come soon enough, and AI is going to help, a lot.
 
aociswundumho said:
Interesting, I never thought about it like that.

We really need widespread crypto adoption. It can't come soon enough, and AI is going to help, a lot.
Click to expand...

So let' say the dollar collapses and all that is left is crypto and you owned a store of some kind, how do you determine your prices?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom