If we make sure that billionaires can keep more of their billions, then surely some of their billions will trickle down to the very same destination that taxing them in the first place would have ensured that it would end up at. It's actually smarter that way because it's an investment that accrues interest and they will also employ people who otherwise would've been suckling on the teat of big government social programs. Billionaires actually are paying more money into our systems by being job creators than if they were taxed like the middle class are.
Just kidding. Can you imagine actually believing bullshit like that? Fuck, that kinda made my stomach churn to even pretend to believe in.
The Center Square, formerly Watchdog.org, is a conservative American news website that features reporting on state and local governments.[1][2] It is a project of the Franklin News Foundation, a conservative online news organization.[1][3] The Center Square distributes its content through a newswire service.
Deficits only matter to Republicans when there’s an election. They know it’s not a problem. They also know that the average working and middle-class voter here’s “debt” and gets scared. Scared people are more likely to vote Republican.
In fiscal year 2024, the U.S. government spent nearly $900 billion on interest on the debt alone.
"That's more than we spent on national defense, Medicare, and children at the federal level – just a truly astounding figure," MacGuineas said. "The national debt is on track to reach a record share of the economy in just two years, a sobering milestone for both the next Congress and whoever wins the presidency in November."
That was one of the theories around the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire ..... towards the end, wealth became so concentrated to just a few wealthy families, empire kept expanding and having to pay for stuff but nothing was left to pay for anything else and every other non-wealthy citizen had to fend for themselves. The machine got to be so top heavy that nothing was left to support it so it just slowly dissolved and crashed.
I wouldn't worry about it though .... just give it a few hundred years and we'll probably do it all again.
I can't say that I really buy that. Wealth was always concentrated in Rome. I'm going to assume that you mean the Western Roman Empire because the whole Roman Empire lasted until 1453 although there was a brief time that Crusaders took it over. If it were true, both sides of the empire would have fallen since they both operated the same.
The Empire definitely had quite a few issues. The debasement of the coinage led to some pretty significant inflation. It got so bad that Diocletian basically got rid of the mint and went with a very complex goods conversion system. But that was in the 3rd century. The Western Roman Empire had a hell of a lot more tribes bordering them to contend with while the East largely just had the Sassanids. The rules of succession were pretty lax too and many emperors avoided making successors until their death bed. That is fine if the emperor has a slow and predictable death but when they didn't, people (often military leaders) would simply claim they were emperor and take their armies and take over. That gave an opening for outside tribes to take advantage of the chaos.
This is actually great news. The national debt went down last year. I mean, just based on those headline numbers, the national debt is smaller than it was before.
The nominal debt grew by 5% according to those numbers. Meanwhile, in that same period, US GDP nominal GDP grew at about 6% over the last year.
The raw number for national debt is meaningless. Only brain-dead morons care give a single fuck about the raw number. The raw number is for illiterate yokels who are scared of big maths in the way a caveman is scared of "fire! hot!"
For those who aren't brain-dead hicks, the only figure that matters is national debt as a share of GDP. That shows whether our debt load is increasing or decreasing in proportion to our economy. And over the last year, the value of the debt as a share of GDP went DOWN. We could sustain a $1.8 trillion deficit literally forever.
If you get the new Air Dubai card and spend $40T within 3 quarters, you get 400,000 miles that you can redeem through their rewards portal for a Casio.
All that brouhaha when it was 9 trillion about having to add another digit to the National Debt Clock, and then they casually quadrupled the debt in a couple of decades.
The way the fed lends money to the US we will mathmatecially always have more debt than we have currency. What happens to this system when growth functionally stops since our planet has a finite number of resourcs? We need something better relatively soon or we're going to chase the dragon off a cliff.
Growth doesn't matter as long as people still treat the currency like it has value. Most of that debt is owed the the people of the United States, and as long as the US govt continues to pay interest on T bonds and make Social Security payments people will continue to have confidence in the system.
Take a look at Japan as a more advanced example of this, with a larger debt as a percentage of GDP than the US and still maintainjng a sustainable economy despite population shrinkage
Every year the Treasury issues bonds in the amount of the trade deficit to balance out the goods and services exported vs imported. Those bonds are debt that the federal government owes. The money received for the bonds is accounted for but is essentially deleted from the economy... The federal government creates money when it spends, it does not need the money it collects from bonds. We could stop creating this debt every year but they believe that balancing out imported vs exported is important for some reason.
Everyone. National debt is basically from issuing Treasury bonds. You buy one with a fixed term, and when that time comes, the government pays you back that amount with interest.
For reliable countries like the US, this is great. Historically, the US has been very good at paying its debts, so buying T-bills is a reliable investment.
Why would they use single notation for a year (2024) if the fiscal year starts in 2023 and ends in 2024? I've always seen organizations that do that write it as 2023/24 or 2023-24