The U.S. national debt is rising by $1 trillion about every 100 days

[cpwill]

This is not sustainable.

The debt load of the U.S. is growing at a quicker clip[url] in recent months, increasing about $1 trillion nearly every 100 days.... U.S. debt, which is the amount of money the federal government borrows to cover operating expenses, now stands at nearly $34.4 billion, as of Wednesday. Bank of America investment strategist Michael Hartnett believes the 100-day pattern will remain intact with the move from $34 trillion to $35 trillion....​

​

Moody’s Investors Service lowered its ratings outlook on the U.S. government to negative from stable in November due to the rising risks of the country’s fiscal strength. “In the context of higher interest rates, without effective fiscal policy measures to reduce government spending or increase revenues,” the agency said. “Moody’s expects that the US’ fiscal deficits will remain very large, significantly weakening debt affordability.”​

For those who think "Just Raise Taxes" is the solution:



We have had tax rates a lot higher - and didn't collect anywhere close to the % of GDP we need.

 

[Helix]

Raise taxes and lift the contribution ceiling.

 

[cpwill]

Raise taxes and lift the contribution ceiling.

Cool. You are still unsustainable, but now you are also unsustainable with slower growth.

 

[Mycroft]

Before you can even THINK about filling in a hole (reduce the debt), you first have to stop digging the hole deeper (increasing spending).

That means, NO NEW SPENDING!!

After we've established that, then we can think about whether to increase taxes or use another means to fill in the hole.

 

[DrewPaul]

Raise taxes and lift the contribution ceiling.

There is no ceiling on how much people can give to the government. What percentage of your income (over what you're paying now) are you willing to have taken from you? What steps are you going to take to make sure those funds go to the debt and not another congressional spending spree?

 

[Helix]

Cool. You are still unsustainable, but now you are also unsustainable with slower growth.

If you want to address the problem, it's a step in the right direction. Republicans don't actually want to address the problem, though. They just want to use it. If they wanted to address the problem, they wouldn't keep giving the ultra-rich more tax cuts.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Why don't we wait until a Republican is in the Whitte House and then doggedly tackle the problem mkay?

 

[Helix]

There is no ceiling on how much people can give to the government. What percentage of your income (over what you're paying now) are you willing to have taken from you? What steps are you going to take to make sure those funds go to the debt and not another congressional spending spree?

This is a bullshit deflection. Who did you lift it from?

 

[Helix]

Why don't we wait until a Republican is in the Whitte House and then doggedly tackle the problem mkay?

They'd do it by ruining SS, Medicare, and the social safety nets. They want to do that quite badly.

 

[cpwill]

If you want to address the problem, it's a step in the right direction. Republicans don't actually want to address the problem, though. They just want to use it. If they wanted to address the problem, they wouldn't keep giving the ultra-rich more tax cuts.

Republicans and Democrats are both unwilling to address the problem, and we've tried higher tax rates:




It turns out, people are able to anticipate things, and alter behavior accordingly. So long as we are keeping our basic progressive structure, nominal revenues are driven primarily by growth (or lack thereof).

 

[cpwill]

They'd do it by ruining SS, Medicare, and the social safety nets. They want to do that quite badly.

How would you propose we reduce expenditures in SS and Medicare without "ruining" them?

 

[Helix]

Republicans and Democrats are both unwilling to address the problem, and we've tried higher tax rates:

View attachment 67495924


It turns out, people are able to anticipate things, and alter behavior accordingly. So long as we are keeping our basic progressive structure, nominal revenues are driven primarily by growth (or lack thereof).

My solution would slow the problem down. What's yours?

 

[Helix]

How would you propose we reduce expenditures in SS and Medicare without "ruining" them?

Raise the contribution ceiling.

 

[stealthycat]

This is not sustainable.

Democrats/liberals will tell you massive national debt is GOOD

they're not worried about it at all - and I'm with them. Eliminate income tax on anyone under 1,000,000 income and drive the national debt to 75 trillion

why? because it literally doesn't matter anymore eventually we'll default on that debt , might as well be 100 trillion or 150 trillion .... it doesn't matter anymore

 

[Airyaman]

This is not sustainable.

The debt load of the U.S. is growing at a quicker clip[url] in recent months, increasing about $1 trillion nearly every 100 days.... U.S. debt, which is the amount of money the federal government borrows to cover operating expenses, now stands at nearly $34.4 billion, as of Wednesday. Bank of America investment strategist Michael Hartnett believes the 100-day pattern will remain intact with the move from $34 trillion to $35 trillion....​

​

Moody’s Investors Service lowered its ratings outlook on the U.S. government to negative from stable in November due to the rising risks of the country’s fiscal strength. “In the context of higher interest rates, without effective fiscal policy measures to reduce government spending or increase revenues,” the agency said. “Moody’s expects that the US’ fiscal deficits will remain very large, significantly weakening debt affordability.”​

For those who think "Just Raise Taxes" is the solution:

View attachment 67495908

We have had tax rates a lot higher - and didn't collect anywhere close to the % of GDP we need.

So what should be cut? That is always the problem, neither side wants to cut spending on their favorite things.

 

[dmpi]

So what should be cut? That is always the problem, neither side wants to cut spending on their favorite things.

How about both sides start cutting spending. We can start by cutting aid to both Israel and Ukraine.

 

[OrphanSlug]

We need dozens of more threads saying this is "unsustainable" by those who can neither explain why nor offer a suggestion on what to do about it.

 

[cpwill]

My solution would slow the problem down

and adds to it, by slowing overall revenue growth and increasing liabilities.

What's yours?

I've put in a little bit of effort over the years describing what I thought of as good pathways to improve these programs and out of this. Since we have decided to kick the can until we hit a crisis, however, we are not going to have any good options. We aren't even going to have any not-so-bad options. We have decided to wait until we only have terrible options. So, in a best case scenario, we are going to end up dramatically reducing expenditures in other parts of the government (and this will have seriously deleterious effects, including harmful economic effects), seriously reducing benefits (and this will have seriously deleterious effects, including hurting retirees), and raising payroll tax rates on the middle class (and this will have seriously deleterious effects, including harming parents and our already-struggling Millenial, Z and Alpha generations). Assuming it goes well. But, the Boomers are our richest, and most powerful generation, and they clearly aren't interested in giving up power or thinking ahead, so, it could go worse.

 

[cpwill]

Raise the contribution ceiling.

That increases expenditures. The question was "How do you propose we reduce expenditures in these programs without ruining them?"

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

This is sad. Truly sad.
Let's play the blame game, or the partisan party game.
Let's poo poo any ideas anyone has to bring the debt down.
Yet, I read very few "suggestions" above other than the one from Helix.

I am NOT an economist. But even someone without a degree in economics can provide a few suggestions. Only to have them poo pooed as well by people who have a political ideology that goes against any suggestions I could make.

But here are my suggestions anyways:
Reverse Trump's tax cuts to the wealthy.
Raise taxes marginally (not bigly) on incomes over $250,000.
One less aircraft carrier, one less stealth fighter, a couple of dozen fewer nukes and you would STILL have far more firepower than anyone else in the world.
Cut out the pork. You know what pork spending is, right? Not money needed to improve roads and rebuild bridges, but money spend as pet projects in certain districts to make a particular politician look good. Example: look up Alaska's highway to nowhere.
Here is one lots of people will take issue with:
Keep aid flowing to Israel and Ukraine, but why does the US have to maintain dozens of military bases all over the world? In S Korea it makes sense, but what sense does it make to spread them all through northern Africa and in countries like Iraq?

AND those are just off the top of my head, and all of that without having a degree in economics. Now let's hear it? What do I know? That's easier than coming up with ideas of your own, isn't it??

 

[cpwill]

We need dozens of more threads saying this is "unsustainable" by those who can neither explain why nor offer a suggestion on what to do about it.

We have to dramatically reduce federal expenditures and raise taxes, and be open on the fact that the consequences of this will be harmful, including to the vulnerable, and the only reason we are doing it is to avoid worse.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

Holy crap! That’s faster than Trump by almost 5 orders of magnitude!

 

[j brown's body]

Defense spending seems to be a tad high.

 

[DrewPaul]

There is no ceiling on how much people can give to the government. What percentage of your income (over what you're paying now) are you willing to have taken from you? What steps are you going to take to make sure those funds go to the debt and not another congressional spending spree?

This is a bullshit deflection. Who did you lift it from?

How in the world is this a deflection from your solution to the problem? You say raise taxes, asking how much more you're willing to pay is a deflection? Asking if there is a mechanism to make sure the additional taxes goes to servicing the debt is a deflection from a discussion about the national debt and how to deal with it?

Why would I need to lift this from someone? I believe the national debt is a disgrace. I'm 66 so its probably not going to affect me too much. It will be a horrific problem left for several generations if something isn't done. I wouldn't be opposed to a 5% (of income) surtax if it goes directly to servicing the outstanding debt. However to solve the problem they also need to balance the budget. What sense would it be to pay the debt in one hand while continuing to grow it in the other hand.

Do you want to discuss this issue or deflect by calling it a bullshit deflection?

 

[Kushinator]

Cool. You are still unsustainable, but now you are also unsustainable with slower growth.

Depends on what you raise taxes on. If it's prime with little savings, then yes tax increases will eat into consumption.

But if you cut spending, v there will be slower growth.