US hits $38 trillion in gross national debt | AP News
By: FATIMA HUSSEIN (AP News)
The GoP used to stand for fiscal conservatism. Republicans (individuals) used to vote for those who would try to be fiscally conservative.
Now 'Republicans' cheer on an irresponsible buffoon who imposes a consumption tax, fires thousands of government workers, and still manages to oversee $38 trillion in national debt.
Those who support Trump for policy reasons in spite of his many flaws apparently no longer care about fiscal responsibility along with a lack of concern about how Trump trashes on the rule of law and the CotUS.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON (AP) — In the midst of a federal government shutdown, the U.S. government's gross national debt surpassed $38 trillion Wednesday, a record number that highlights the accelerating accumulation of debt on America's balance sheet.
It's also the fastest accumulation of a trillion dollars in debt outside of the COVID-19 pandemic — the U.S. hit $37 trillion in gross national debt in August this year.
The $38 trillion update is found in the latest Treasury Department report, which logs the nation's daily finances.
Kent Smetters of the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model, who served in President George W. Bush's Treasury Department, told The Associated Press that a growing debt load over time leads ultimately to higher inflation, eroding Americans' purchasing power.
The Government Accountability Office outlines some of the impacts of rising government debt on Americans — including higher borrowing costs for things like mortgages and cars, lower wages from businesses having less money available to invest, and more expensive goods and services.
"I think a lot of people want to know that their kids and grandkids are going to be in good, decent shape in the future — that they will be able to afford a house," Smetters said. "That additional inflation compounds" and erodes consumers' purchasing power, he said, making it less possible for future generations to achieve home ownership goals.
Related Stories China and the United States, Fall 2025: A timeline of remarks, threats, critiques — and dialogue4 MIN READTrump's turnaround on sanctions targets Russia's oil companies that fund the war in Ukraine5 MIN READTrump levies new sanctions on Russian oil giants in a push on Putin to end Ukraine war5 MIN READ
The Trump administration says its policies are helping to slow government spending and will shrink the nation's massive deficit. A new analysis by Treasury Department officials states that from April to September, the cumulative deficit totaled $468 billion. In a post on X Wednesday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that's the lowest reading since 2019.
"During his first eight months in office, President Trump has reduced the deficit by $350 billion compared to the same period in 2024 by cutting spending and boosting revenue," White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement, adding that the administration would pursue robust economic growth, lower inflation, tariff revenue, lower borrowing costs and cuts to waste, fraud and abuse.
The Joint Economic Committee estimates that the total national debt has grown by $69,713.82 per second for the past year.
Michael Peterson, chair and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, said in a statement that "reaching $38 trillion in debt during a government shutdown is the latest troubling sign that lawmakers are not meeting their basic fiscal duties."
"Along with increasing debt, you get higher interest costs, which are now the fastest growing part of the budget," Peterson added. "We spent $4 trillion on interest over the last decade, but will spend $14 trillion in the next ten years. Interest costs crowd out important public and private investments in our future, harming the economy for every American."
The U.S. hit $34 trillion in debt in January 2024, $35 trillion in July 2024 and $36 trillion in November 2024.
FATIMA HUSSEIN Hussein reports on the U.S. Treasury Department for The Associated Press. She covers tax policy, sanctions and any issue that relates to money.
Tags
Who is online
94 visitors
Fiscal conservatives should be outraged.
They aren't, it's a Republican president so they do not care.
Makes you wonder what Trump supporters actually care about.
Most of what they claim he is doing are fantasy.
The key policies that are reality and consistent with the former GoP are immigration, border control, and smaller government.
Yet his immigration is overblown and is going after any illegal, not just murderers, rapists, etc. His smaller government irresponsibly hatcheted functions and targeted those who were seen as non-supporters of Trump. And this smaller government is clearly NOT limited government as Trump is abusing the powers of the government in ways that harm the people (e.g. tariffs, National Guard deployments, massive spending, ...).
Ronald Reagan would be appalled at what Trump is doing and disgusted at his party as they roll over and (for the most part) let him do whatever he wants ... as if he were King.
I would say they care about nothing but lining their own pockets by any means necessary.
Canada ran an ad, sans AI, about Reagan's economic policies and now Trump has once again cancelled trade talks. He is no more than the proverbial petulant child found in any preschool playgroup.
Control.
I think it is also an emotional desire to stick it to their vision of 'the left'. Apparently at any cost.
a trillion dollars in new debt every quarter sounds about right for trump ...
That's a large part of why they need control. So they can control what people read and where they live and what they can say....
I read somewhere that republicans are playing hardball with the shutdown because the new healthcare premiums start hitting 11/1/25. what's the story from your professional perspective?
"He is no more than the proverbial petulant child found in any preschool playgroup."
LOL
Ronald Reagan would be appalled at what Trump is doing and disgusted at his party as they roll over and (for the most part) let him do whatever he wants ... as if he were King.
The Republican Party jettisoned that commie leftist a long time ago. He’s been replaced with this guy:
forget all that shit he said before he got nailed to a cross, maga geezus is looking to own some godless libs ...
... too bad they're as rare as moderates on that side of the aisle now.
I suspect most are NOT Republicans. I, for example, am a lifelong fiscal conservative.
... not after 1981.
in less than 5 years of holding the oval office combined, trump is singularly responsible for at least 20% of that debt.
What conservative policies are responsible for the national debt?
By definition, a fiscally conservative policy would not have deficit spending, and a drastically smaller (if not nonexistent) national debt.
The key Republican/conservative policies that contributed to the national debt are defense spending and the practice of borrowing rather than taxing.
But since you asked a factual question, I asked ChatGPT to compile a list of initiatives that contributed to the national debt this century. I asked it to include both Republican and Democratic party influences.
I didn't ask about fiscally conservative policies, did I? I asked what conservative policies are responsible for the national debt?
But borrowing to spend is considered a liberal practice. Democrats spend without taxing. Republicans spend without taxing. How does that make the two parties different? Neither Democrats or Republican tax more than they spend which would be the only way to pay down the national debt.
ChatGPT will only regurgitate information based upon the modern labels applied to advocacy for unrestricted social freedoms (social liberalism) and opposition to social liberalism by advocating social traditions, conventions, and practices (social conservatism). The political labels of 'liberal' and 'conservative' do not have anything to do with economic beliefs or policy.
As I stated, Democrats and Republicans spend without taxing. Democrats direct spending for 'safety net' policies is considered social welfare for the poor. Republican tax cuts would be considered economic welfare for the rich. They may pursue different welfare policies but the result from both is same.
Democrats and Republicans are actually both fiscally liberal. Democrats have been fiscally liberal since Lyndon Johnson. Republicans have been fiscally liberal since Ronald Reagan. That's why 97% of the national debt has been created since Ronald Reagan first became President.
Context. I was talking about fiscal conservatism.
And note, Nerm, I then went on to address your change to conservatism rather than strictly fiscal conservatism in the balance of my post.
Then the GoP is apparently liberal too.
Bullshit. Learn about the technology before posting utter nonsense like the above.
ChatGPT is no better than its training data. And that training data has been tainted by modern misappropriation and phony identification by the press, academia, institutional authorities, and political parties.
Republicans will tell you straight up they are Classical Liberals (neoliberals in todays vernacular) following principles established by figures such as John Locke and Adam Smith. What we have lost is the Protestant conservatism of the American Revolution era. Protestant conservatives advocate for conservation, stewardship, prudence, and stability. The concept of Liberty (from the revolutionary era) combines ideals and principles of Protestant Conservatives and Classic Liberals.
The idea of fiscal conservatism is based upon those classical Protestant ideals of stewardship, prudence, and stability that require self restraint and discipline. Those who advocate classical conservatism have become internal enemies in the United States; denounced by the press, academia, institutional authority, and the political elite.
How can the government be fiscally conservative when there aren't any real conservatives in government any longer?
Correct, except that the training data is sanitized and post-training takes place. So not entirely correct.
This is the bullshit part. While the data is clearly not pure, you are trying to portray it as mostly tainted and that is just flat wrong.
Bottom line, ChatGPT is a source. And if you think it got something wrong then you can factually challenge as one could do with any source. Categorically dismissing it is foolish (and incorrect).
The curated training data relies on institutional and academic consensus information that is definitely not truly conservative. The standing consensus viewpoint today is that Classic Liberal defines conservativism. That would actually be a liberal conservative but the elite consensus would object to pointing out that flaw.
Generative training is also exposed to far more liberal sources than conservative ones. As I pointed out, the conservative ideals of conservation, stewardship, prudence, and stability can trace its roots to religious beliefs which have been abandoned in academic, institutional, and political discourse. LLMs will be exposed to phony liberal conservative ideas rather than truly conservative ideas.
No doubt ChatGPT can provide descriptions of Edmund Burke's conservative ideals and Protestant/Puritan ideals in American history. But ChatGPT will be incapable of translating that purer form of conservatism into today's social, economic, and political discourse. ChatGPT cannot escape it internal bias equating Classic Liberalism with conservatism; i.e. a liberal conservative.
Correct. It is not ideologically conservative or progressive/liberal.
Back up your mere claim. Do research on the topic of bias mitigation.
I don't know if this will work. Here a link (I hope) to a ChatGPT session exploring biases in training data, generative training, and changes in the meaning of liberal and conservative. It is a long read but IMO addresses your demand to back up my claim. (If the link works.)
This suggests ChatGPT is biased towards secular analysis; not untrue. It is more accurate to say that it seeks to be neutral and evidence-base. That makes perfect sense to go after evidence-based reasoning rather than use beliefs as if they were facts.
That does not mean that there is a liberal bias in the sense that ChatGPT will distort its presentation to appeal to liberals rather than conservatives. It simply means that the majority of factual content does not come from theological sources.
The overriding objective of ChatGPT is to be accurate.
I backed up my claim. ChatGPT clearly describes the biases in the corpus of training data and available information for generative training.
ChatGPT attempts to be accurate within the context of biases over which the LLM has no agency. The ChatGPT accuracy is determined by statistical correlation of consensus points of view within a corpus of information that is predominantly liberal. (Read through the linked ChatGPT session for an explanation of that last claim.)
I told you upfront that ChatGPT mitigates bias. That does not mean that it eliminates ALL bias.
You are attempting to claim it has a liberal bias to the degree where it distorts its presentation to favor a liberal audience.
I am telling you that this is wrong and that the objective of ChatGPT is neutral, evidence-based presentation.
It will naturally NOT be slanted towards conservatives because much of that ideology stems from religious beliefs, not empirical data.
And I told you that mitigating bias is beyond the ability of ChatGPT.
I am claiming the corpus of curated data available to train ChatGPT is biased. The session I linked enumerates those biases. ChatGPT cannot alter biases in training.
It is impossible for ChatGPT to be neutral. Check the portion of the session that discusses the bias toward environmentalism versus conservation.
But Classic Liberals are well represented. Even the representation of conservatives in the corpus of training data is biased toward a liberal consensus. ChatGPT confirms that.
That is flat out wrong and your source even shows it. OpenAI goes through substantial effort to mitigate bias. They cannot remove ALL bias but they sure as hell are trying to. Their objective is neutral, evidence-based presentation.
Then explain why the table provided by ChatGPT @1.4.1 equates early tax cuts with later spending increases? Cutting taxes reduces revenue. The tax cuts do not reduce revenue below the initial cut. But the spending initiatives have built-in spending increases over time. Who would increase indexed spending when revenue has declined?
ChatGPT is biased toward blaming inadequate redistribution as the cause of spending beyond available revenue. In ChatGPT's table the tax cuts in A preceded the spending increases in B.
Why hasn't that bias been mitigated?
Because it did what I asked it to do: show initiatives that increased the deficit and national debt.
Borrowing instead of using tax revenue increases national debt. Tax cuts force borrowing.
Lost revenue from a tax cut raises the deficit; increased spending raises the deficit.
It is not some conspiratorial bias imposed by the AI developers.
Tax cuts force reductions in spending. It's only spending that forces borrowing. That is a straightforward economic principle.
That doesn't mean I agree that all the tax cuts were necessary. But the economic facts are that borrowing is only a consequence of spending.
That's exactly the bias I am talking about. Lost income does not justify maintaining a lifestyle on credit. And access to a line of credit doesn't make borrowing a source of income. Those ideas are inconsistent with economic principles.
Deficits and borrowing are only the consequence of spending. If there is not an attempt spend more than available revenue or income then there would not be debt. Arguing about the necessity of spending won't change the economic fact that debt is only a consequence of spending.
It is a bias imposed by the training data. That training data has an embedded bias that borrowing is a result of insufficient income rather than too much spending. That is a consensus viewpoint in the corpus of liberal (and neoliberal) information available for training an LLM. That viewpoint is based upon biases that GDP growth is necessary, inflation in necessary, and increasing the money supply is necessary. If the set of training data only included information from before 1960 the bias would be completely different.
That ignored what I just wrote. Tax cuts reduce revenue. Given spending is always excessive nowadays, cutting revenue forces borrowing. I do not approve, but that is reality. ChatGPT is reflecting reality even though it sucks.
What you call bias is actually stating what happens in the real world. I do not consider recognizing reality to be a bias.
Yes the training data naturally provides a bias. But you are trying to claim that ChatGPT has a liberal bias. That is unsupported and your argument does not support your claim.
Wrong. That is your spin. It is reflecting the FACT that in today's world, when tax cuts are made that will necessarily trigger borrowing because the spending is already over the top. Reality, Nerm.
I did not ask ChatGPT to give advice on how to be fiscally conservative.
Then why doesn't that "reality" apply to the private sector or all levels of government?
The LLM is not functioning like a calculator. The LLM does not use reasoning to arrive at a response or conclusion. The LLM did not conclude that Federal economic activity defies the simple principles of economics through any application of economic principles or ability to reason. The LLM obtained a statistical correlation within its training and responded accordingly. That response was only a result of biases in the training data.
The training data is biased to describe Federal economic activity differently than the simple principles of economics would describe for other economic activity. The LLM response reflected that bias.
Do you mean "Real conservatives" . . . or actual Libertarians?
What does that even mean? Libertarians will tell you they are Classic Liberals who value freedom above responsibility.
I wonder sometimes if you actually read what you have written. To wit:
According to the model apparently espoused by you, the idea of fiscal conservatism may only be practiced by protestants? Or is that people who behave like Protestants? You seem to want to place words into your own definitions. I always thought that a fiscal conservative was someone who was rather bearish on the market side of things and liked to take it slowly and steadily, ie, slow and steady growth as opposed to some of the get rich quick schemes. They like to make reasonably sure that their investments are going to pay off and not act like an alligator eating up their resources.... I don't see fiscally conservative people denounced by the members of society. I do see charlatans who some denounce and some esteem. These people would most definitely include most of the elected Federal employees.
This is getting ridiculous, Nerm.
Congress has been running a deficit since Bush 43. Our National Debt has continued to increase from that time to now absurd proportions. So it is a fact of reality that Congress and the Executive Branch ALWAYS (in modern times) spend more than they receive in revenue. (We can only hope that this trend stops.)
Given that there is not enough revenue to even cover the deficit, a tax-cut worsens the situation.
This is reality. This is how it works for everyone. If a private sector company systemically spends more than it earns, then giving employees (especially executives) bonuses and raises compounds the problem.
What is this word salad?
Are you attempting to erase the Protestant Reformation from human history? Are you attempting to reframe the entire Age of Enlightenment as some sort of self-indulgent expression of anarchy? The Protestant Reformation made people responsible for their own moral agency; they weren't subservient to an institutional moral authority. The Protestant/Puritan ideal of self restraint and personal responsibility during the colonial period had a very strong influence on the founding of the United States.
You seem to be attempting to lay the groundwork for a secular humanism that allows people to do whatever they want, whenever they want to do it. Removing the principles of self restraint and personal responsibility that originated with the Protestant Reformation can only result in a self indulgent society that seeks instant gratification because they have the freedom to do so.
A conservative would place a higher priority on self restraint, personal responsibility, and internalized moral agency. A conservative would use institutional authority to impose individual restraint when people refuse to do so for themselves. A liberal would place a higher priority on freedom from institutional restraint that allows pursuing whatever they want, whenever they want. A liberal would use institutional authority to restrain the institution and remove any obstacles to individual freedom.
Those are polar opposites that cannot reconcile differences through compromise. It becomes a contest between totalitarian restraint and anarchy. That's why the United States was founded as a progressive nation based upon the ideas of Protestant/Puritan self restrain and freedom allowed by institutional restrain. A progressive balances individual restraint and individual freedom.
A fiscal conservative would emphasize fiscal restraint. A fiscal liberal would emphasize fiscal freedom. Those are polar opposites that cannot reconcile differences through compromise. Without a moderating progressive influence the nation's fiscal health swings back and forth between austerity and overindulgent generosity.
And how did Bill Clinton balance the budget? Clinton eliminated 400,000 Federal jobs, reduced welfare spending, and inherited increased tax revenue from Reagan's increased FICA taxes. The FICA tax increase would not have balanced the budget alone.
Clinton cut spending to avoid borrowing. How does Clinton's example refute what I have said?
Or follow Clinton's example and cut spending. It worked for Bill Clinton.
That's correct. A private company or private individual spending more than they earn are using credit as income. Unlimited credit allows unlimited borrowing. But it is not the lack of income that is responsible for the borrowing. The need for borrowing is caused by spending more than is earned.
The merits of government spending are beyond economic principles. A biased attitude that the need to spend outweighs the fiscal consequences has nothing to do with economics or reality. That biased attitude that spending outweighs fiscal consequence is strictly a political argument that has little, if any, grounding in reality. There is very little objectivity in politics. Politics is almost exclusively biased subjectivity. A conclusion that spending outweighs fiscal consequences is a subjectively biased conclusion.
An LLM response that aligns with the subjectively biased conclusion that spending outweighs fiscal consequences, in spite of real world examples, only repeats biases contained in the LLM's training data.
You brought up Clinton and now you are asking me how your example refutes your argument.
This is (as often is) pointless.
The basic logic is simple. Reducing taxes in a condition where the Federal government is guaranteed to overspend forces borrowing to make up the difference.
There is no major bias in ChatGPT put there intentionally by OpenAI. There is a natural bias reflecting that of the vast corpus of data. But that corpus was not selected to favor particular ideologies.
You are the one that stated the Congress has been running a deficit since Bush 43. That means Clinton 42 didn't run a deficit. Has Clinton's example been omitted from the training data? Was the prompt biased to omit any examples before the year 2000 to introduce bias into the response?
Why would the government be guaranteed to overspend? You know 97% of the national debt has been created since 1980. What made the last 45 years so very different from the first 190 years?
I never, ever said the training data was selected according to a bias.
I might ask the same of your comment.
I hate to tell you this, NermL, but conservatives and liberals exist independent of the Protestant Reformation. The concept of conservatives and liberals extends back throughout human history. They are political temperaments and therefore they existed far before the CE and probably before the ancient Phoenicians. I would imagine that they have been around since the dawn of mankind and probably even before that. So I reject your posit of Protestant Reformation creating the concept of fiscal conservatism outright.
There you go again, putting words in my mouth. Show me where I said that.
Here’s what secular humanism actually means:
That’s not “anything goes.” It’s a disciplined, ethical framework built on evidence and responsibility. You could try thinking outside the Protestant paradigm for a change.
You see, I am not even sure how you made that leap, so much so that I would say that the paragraph is almost non sequitur. People existed, Liberals and Conservatives, because the concept of liberal/conservative has always existed in real life. And everyone alive has to balance "individual restraint and individual freedom." Everyone. One is not special just because one is a Protestant.
From ChatGPT:
These are not polar opposites, they are two sides of a coin. They’re not mortal enemies but complementary forces. The Yin and Yang of today's capitalism. When reduced to their most basic form, can both exist at the same time within the same government.
When we look at the politicians of today, they do not speak this language. They speak like you do and say the other side is wrong. Obama was the last President to try and speak the language of pragmatism and cooperation between the two main parties and the parties slapped him silly.
The existence of differing philosophies at the same time is not why we have the large deficits that we do today. The reason is that someone got in their collective brains the idea that we can lower taxes and the economy will expand at such a rate that we will be able to pay for everything. The people of this country grew to expect certain things from the government, and to provide those things the taxes need to be raised. In other words, you can't get something for nothing, and something for nothing is what the people want.
Rush -Something for Nothing
Context:
1946 Debt to GDP was about 119%
1980 GDP < $3 Billion, Debt to GDP <35%
2025 $38 Trillion, Debt to GDP somewhere around 120%
We have been here before.
And again, it seems that everyone is expecting for someone else to pay for it.
I say we cut the defense budget by 25%, tax similar to the rates following WWII, throw the Trump tariffs out, institute a national health care policy to direct the moneys to the benefits of scale, make Social Security means tested. Hahahahaha! I must be hallunicating.
Brilliant
You are arguing for the sake of arguing again.
I am done catering to you, Nerm.
You are comparing the cost of a global war to the start of profligate peacetime spending to now?
You'd make a great apologist for lack of fiscal restraint and fiscal irresponsibility.
Harry Truman made deep post war defense cuts. And there was the usual bellyaching from the pigs at the public trough. Truman also increased taxes for all tax brackets to fund the Korean War. Truman did not just tax the rich; the minimum tax rate increased to 20% too.
My point is debt is a direct result of spending. If you want to throw public money at every problem then national debt is going to increase. If you want to bail out the banks with emergency spending then the debt is going to increase. If the economy needs $ trillions of stimulus then the debt is going to increase. If we're going to fight a war then the debt is going to increase.
The Obamacare expanded Premium Tax Credits had a built in expiration date. That was not intended to be permanent spending. Trying to make temporary spending permanent really is a spending problem and not a tax problem. Don't spend money the government does not have.
I am saying that we have been here before, in terms Debt to GDP ratio. How did we decrease the ratio before? We decreased spending and increased taxes.
Parties, both Democratic and Republican, have convinced the generalized public that they can have what they want without raising taxes (or even cutting them) if we only grow our economy fast enough. News Flash: We can't grow our GDP that fast. That rate of growth causes instability and crashes frequently, causing mayhem in both the markets and especially the workforce. The people at the lower income levels are affected much more harshly than the people at the higher income levels.
Almost right. Debt is a direct result of spending more than income, aka, borrowing.
On the ACA. If the corporations had let the Public Option Stand and the Senate had let the personal mandate remain, we wouldn't need these stupid subsidies.
But the GDP was not calculated the same way in 1946, 1980, and today. Government debt wasn't calculated the same way, either.
Applying today's metrics to the past is not very informative about factors surrounding policy decisions of those eras. Besides, a single year is only a data point and not a trend. Here's what a trend looks like:
(The ratio can be influenced by both changes in debt and changes in GDP.)
Here's the trend in total public debt that clearly shows 97% of our current debt has been created after 1981. (Since that will likely cause anal drain, more than 99% of the national debt has been created since Jan. 1, 1966. For those aged 59 and older, the national debt has been created during our lifetimes.)
As the data clearly shows, Barack Obama ushered in that shift in attitude. Both the debt to GDP and raw GDP ballooned during Obama's two terms. 74% of the national debt has been created since Jan. 1, 2008. Both the Great Recession and the COVID pandemic mark a clear decline in fiscal restraint.
How would a Public Option work given that Medicare and Medicaid are now offering private sector coverage with enhanced benefits? Doesn't Medicare C kind of undermine the argument for a public option?
The personal mandate was intended to mimic FICA taxes. But as we have seen, FICA taxes have not kept up with inflation. And medical inflation has been much higher than general inflation. Indexing premiums to inflation would not have overcome premium creep.
The mandated coverage would also have increased the strain on the delivery of medical care by promoting preventive screenings and wellness care. As we've seen, the healthcare system has increased promotion of this type of low-cost, high-profit medical services.
The subsidies were built in to ACA from the beginning. Even the Private Option was going to be subsidized. The broader coverage from a mandated Public Option might have decreased individual subsidies but that would have been counterbalanced by subsidies for more people.
Democrats are currently. holding the government hostage to incur another trillion plus in debt.[✘]
So let's roll back the millionaire and billionaire tax cuts so we can continue to subsidize healthcare for the average American citizen.
That wouldn't even pay for the half the cost of extending the "temporary" covid credits that the fiscal trainwreck that is Obamacare requires.
So you'd rather give the wealthiest of the wealthy more money than help out your average American. Sounds about right.
Do you understand the topic? I'm not giving the wealthy anything. I'm pointing out that if you want to give money to people to help with the damage Obamacare has wrought, it's going to cost a lot more than just rolling back the tax cuts on millionaires. That is, of course, if you care about not taking even more money from future generations to subsidize people with six figure incomes. .
Do you understand your own viewpoint?
Fine coverage of Trump's fiscal irresponsibility:
Tea Party patriots demanding balanced budgets and zero deficits where are you?
Trump went bankrupt so many times he knows nothing about balancing a budget and he clearly doesn't care now he's spending taxpayer dollars on a fool's errand bailing out Argentina to the tune of 40 Billion Dollars.
Deficit spending on massive tax cuts to the companies paying for a golden ballroom that taxpayers will never get to enjoy.
If there is one thing DJT has shown an absolute command over throughout his entire life, it is debt. Who is surprised? He used debt as leverage in his personal life followed by creative bankruptcy dealings to escape the ramifications. Now he’s in a position to basically print money. Of course he will leverage that to the greatest extent possible, with the full force of an army of morons carrying him on their shoulders, cheering on their own demise.
The only reason Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility is because Democrats are not fiscally responsible. That does not mean Republicans actually care about deficits or national debt. It's only a political talking point -- another lie.
The only reason Democrats talk about Republican fiscal responsibility is to politically attack Republicans. Democrats don't actually care about deficits or national debt. It's only a political talking point -- another lie.
There isn't anyone minding the store. Trump has shown that to be a true fact. Trump can destroy anything he wants and no one in Congress will lift a finger. Oh, they'll whine and throw talking points around but both Republicans and Democrats lie about everything.
Meanwhile there will be protests in cities around the country that only disrupt the lives of local people. The protests will shut down local businesses, interfere with local workers. The protesters will gladly shit on their own plates. The liars in Washington D.C. are safe. No one will disrupt their lives because they're special people. There won't be protesters storming the Capitol because that's insurrection. There won't be a siege of the White House because everyone is required to kiss Donald Trump's ass. The people are not allowed to shut down government because that would be political violence. Only the elected liars who care nothing about the people are allowed to shut down government.
Equating the two is silly. Republicans are bad on spending, no doubt and have become worse since turning to Trump, whose views on spending are the most democratic friendly Republican President since Nixon. The current shutdown is the perfect example. Democrats, despite the massive problem, are holding the government hostage to add massive amounts of debt. Without Republicans providing some pushback, the problem would be infinitely worse right now. Just wait until they control the House Senate and Presidency at some point in the future, gut the filibuster and spend billions upon billions bailing out blue cities like Chicago.
It's simply politically impossible to cut debt. Democrats view as every problem as a spending problem (because they enrich themselves through self dealing) while manipulating gullible, ignorant voters into thinking any cut in the rate of increase of spending on any program will kill thousands, impoverish millions etc etc... and it becomes impossible to win popular elections. Using government money to buy support has been a recognized problem with democracy for thousands of years and we are heading towards a cataclysm.
Entitlement programs and interest on the debt we have already taken out are runaway trains. Democrats demagogue even the most reasonable proposals to reign in the worst excesses (stop giving money to illegals) and until they recognize the problem and start taking steps there nothing else really matters.
97% of the national debt has been created since Ronald Reagan's inauguration. Republicans have not been any more fiscally responsible than Democrats. The numbers don't lie.
Deficits caused by tax cuts are also government welfare programs. Republican welfare spending has actually outpaced the welfare spending of Democrats.
That is a typical Republican talking point because Republicans refuse to work for their welfare. Trump's Golden Pussy Palace is a prime example of Republican welfare. Any two-bit, fly-by-night Mexican construction company can breeze into town and destroy things. But Trump hasn't started work on his Golden Pussy Palace and, quite possibly, will skip town before the construction is complete.
Republicans haven't done one damned thing for the country since Ronald Reagan sat at the Resolute desk. It's a hell of a note that Jimmy Carter was the last American President. Every President since, from both parties, have been welfare queens.
That's the definition of a meaningless statistic that doesn't even try to prove causation. Who is that supposed to work on?
eficits caused by tax cuts are also government welfare programs. Republican welfare spending has actually outpaced the welfare spending of Democrats.
Lol. Tax cuts are a drop in the bucket compared to the explosion in spending on entitlements.
Any adult who has paid attention to the news during their lives understands the Democrats have pushed for massive expansions in spending, Republicans fight them and end up compromising for some less ridiculous amount of spending increases. Believing the debt would only be 38 trillion if Republicans had let democrats have their way is one of th silliest arguments you can make.
Trump's Golden Pussy Palace is a prime example of Republican welfare.
Using private money that costs taxpayers nothing? Good one.
Donations for Trump's Golden Pussy Palace are tax exempt. That's tax welfare. The donors are going to give up X number of dollars. It's the same X number of dollars whether it is donated to Trump or a tax payment. The donors are not spending any less either way. Why is a Golden Pussy Palace more important than the social safety net?
You do realize the the Golden Pussy Palace is also a damned government building that will be staffed by damned government workers. The Golden Pussy Palace is an expansion of the damned government.
Democrats would if they could. It's the Republican majority in congress who have simply given up any and all oversight responsibility in favor of licking Trumps shoes.
Who was the last president to balance the budget and actually have a surplus???????
Of Course Bush couldn't wait to give the "surplus" back to the taxpayers, not once but twice, while racking up debt in the war on terror.
So the answer is Bill Clinton.
That was the President who ended the era of Big Government. Clinton balanced the budget by reducing the size of the civilian government workforce by a third, by cutting welfare spending, and by collecting more tax revenue from working class Americans.
Are you really sure Clinton was a Democrat? Clinton doubled down on Ronald Reagan's policies.
Reagan's policies would be considered extreme left wing by today's GOP.
Actually the answer was Bill Clinton and a Republican congress for the last 6 years of his presidency who together actually negotiated and agreed on rational and reasonable compromise on budget and taxation issues. Something that is unheard of in today's political environment.
You really think so? I have heard some pretty nasty things said here about Reagan and his tax cuts and defense spending.
Say what you will, but tax cuts were not the dominant factor in the rise of debt as a percentage of GDP in the 80's. What else was happening at that time? Massive increases in defense spending during the Cold War to overwhelm and eventually topple the Soviet Union. How different do you think our world might look had the Soviet Union become the reigning superpower? Insufficient domestic spending cuts and high interest rates were also a factor in the rising debt as we were coming off the high inflation of the 70's, dealing with massively increasing Social Security and Medicare outlays, and social programs associated with recovery from the recession of the early 80's. Even the global economic issues of that time had a significant impact.
too bad christo-fascists refuse to compromise ...
Too bad calling people names and berating them doesn't help when it comes to seeking compromise. That is something straight out of Trump's playbook, congratulations on following his lead! /s
I assume you would refuse to compromise with someone you have painted as a "christo-fascist", right? That is a shining example of how to achieve ideological stalemate via hatred and division. Proud of that are you?
Do you think Christian nationalists want to compromise with you? Religious fanatics dont compromise.
you have me all wrong, I want people to be happy. christo-fascists want to meet geezus and I think patriotic americans that want to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, should assist them to end that when they breach the establishment clause.
... oops,
assist them to that end ...
First, I don’t go into it assuming that most Christians are nationalists, fascists, or fanatics, nor do I go around angrily characterizing them as such. Most I know are not. Second, yes I do think that most are willing to compromise and have compromised, have you?
Do I? You wear your disdain for those whom you oppose on your sleeve. You have no problem berating your opponents publicly and ginning up hatred against them. You even go as far as to wish them harm, in your own cleverly veiled words. What I gather from that is that folks like you and Trump are two sides of the same coin. Sorry, just being honest based on what I have seen of your history of commentary here. Perhaps you are different in person and I very much hope so, because I really would like to be wrong about this.
Charlie Kirk was a Christian nationalist. Do you think he was willing to "compromise" ?
Yes.
Do you think that his killer was willing to compromise?
Based on what?
Unfortunately for you that is not relevant.
Based on his willingness to sit down face-to-face with people who disagreed with him, sometimes vehemently, and just have a conversation. And do it respectfully for the most part.
If you watch the bulk of his videos, and not just the snippets of comments removed from their context, you will find more than once, he said, “You know what, I stand corrected.” From time to time people would come to him with a different set of facts or analysis, and he would say something like, “Okay, that sounds right. I agree with you.”
He rarely approached those he handed a microphone with name-calling or a hateful demeanor, even when that was dealt to him regularly by those to whom he offered discussion. That alone reflects a much greater willingness to listen and compromise than most he opposed.
Again, to what degree do you think his killer, or even those who think he deserved it, is/are willing to compromise?
as a patriotic american, I do wish harm for those that violate the US Constitution.
you never listened to his radio show, did you? I did for a few years on the local maga-thumper radio station. listening to kirk, gorka, prager, hewitt, I don't remember hearing much willingness to compromise among them.
learning of all their intentions for america has radicalized me and discounted their value as humans to zero.
[✘]
... okay truthfully, way less than zero.
At what amount of debt would America be bankrupt? Wouldn't genuine fiscal responsibility be to be totally free of debt? Forgive my ignorance about such things - I never studied economics. My father believed that unless you had the cash in your pocket you couldn't afford it, and that's the way I'm living - no credit cards, no debt, no mortgage, and a savings account in the bank.
All it takes is a default. The entire global economy would implode if the United States defaults. China couldn't escape the nuclear option of a US default.
That's basically how a metal reserve would work. It would be necessary to increase the size of the national metal reserve to issue debt. The currency of exchange becomes vulnerable to supply chain disruptions. To avoid those types of disruptions it would be necessary for a country to retain as much of its metal reserve as possible which would put an end to international trade. Even small trade deficits would be very harmful for the importing economy because it would be a loss of metal reserve.
Well, as I said, I never studied economics so it's all beyond me.
We overspend on the military, tax breaks for the rich, boondoggle programs pushed by lobbyists, and we should have means testing for social programs.
Costs a lot to be policeman to the world. I wonder how much the taxes are on the income of the American arms manufacturers.
Not defending either party as they both spend money as if they were 1943 sailors in San Diego on a 24 hour pass, but didn't we just end the fiscal year on Oct 1st and spent all that nine months in the budget passed in Biden's administration? The changes from Trump's BBB (poorly named but they didn't ask me) don't come into effect yet. I've said it in the past, IMO the national debt is a national security issue and needs to be resolved. Instead we have the two parties locked into their usual bickering in an attempt to garner votes for "their" side.
IMO this furthers the need for term limits for Congress. We have many in Congress who have been there for decades and they have forgotten who they work for.
Just for reference?
1 million seconds is ~12 days.
1 billion seconds is ~ 33 years.
(hold on to your hats)
1 trillion seconds is ~ 33,000 years.
So when I hear 38 TRILLION in debt.....holy shit.
That's also 1,254,000 light years. That's about halfway to the Andromeda Galaxy.
It is....scary
OK
I really wish congress would deal with this debt in a positive way. I do not know why the two parties leave this national debt to fester—. Oh look! the debt is still here. It won't go away on its own.
Well looks like an old timer just re-appeared.
WELCOME BACK SIXPICK!
Yes, I got a message from him as well - I'm really glad to see great members checking in. He says he's not posting, but he is watching.
Actually, as you probably remember, another “old timer” was here recently. Wheel. He was pretty active but didn’t stay for long.
I said "great members".