National Debt

Don't Wait! The National Debt Is Only Getting Worse

New CBO report shows that the longer Congress waits to deal with the debt, the bigger the problem becomes.


Getting a handle on America's massive and growing national debt will only be more difficult if lawmakers keep postponing the effort.

In a report released Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) attempted to attach some math to the difficult policy decisions that lie ahead. Regardless of when lawmakers decide to address the $30 trillion national debt, just stabilizing it (that is, implementing policies to stop it from growing relative to the nation's economy as a whole) will require that "income tax receipts or benefit payments change substantially from their currently projected path."

In short, taxes will have to go up and government services—including benefits from programs like Social Security and Medicare, the health insurance program for the elderly—will likely have to be reduced.

That's hardly a new set of prescriptions. Debt-watchers have been warning for years that benefit cuts and tax increases will likely be needed to have any realistic shot at managing America's long-term debt. (And, remember, we're talking about what's needed to merely stabilize the debt, not reduce or eliminate it).

The CBO report charts three prospective courses based on assumptions about when Congress might start implementing necessary changes to face this tsunami of a problem: by 2026, 2031, or 2036.

If policy makers wait until the end of the decade to raise taxes and cut spending, the best-case scenario would leave the debt hovering around 120 percent of GDP over the long term. Waiting longer means higher debt levels forever and more severe consequences.

"As federal borrowing increased, the amount of funds available for private investment would decline (a phenomenon known as crowding out), and interest costs would increase," the CBO warns. "Perpetually rising debt would also increase the likelihood of a fiscal crisis and pose other risks to the U.S. economy."

A larger amount of debt translates into reduced economic growth in the long run, as the cost of interest payments on the debt consumes dollars that could otherwise be put to productive use. As the CBO notes, persistently high levels of debt can also put upward pressure on interest rates and make it more difficult to combat inflation.

President Joe Biden has tried to portray his recent budget plan as fiscally responsible because it envisions a trillion-dollar reduction in the federal budget deficit, which the White House touts as the largest ever. But that's only possible because the government is emerging from two years in which the deficit hit previously unimaginable highs due to the fiscal and monetary policy responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. When you put Biden's budget plan into a larger context, it's anything but fiscally sound—even with a planned tax on the wealthiest Americans, it projects a $1 trillion deficit this year and higher deficits in the years to come.

(Remember, the debt is the accumulation of all federal budget deficits. Reducing the deficit from $3 trillion to $1 trillion does not reduce the size of the current national debt—it still adds $1 trillion to it.)

There's little hope that Republicans will do much to stabilize the debt either. Despite comically promising to pay off the debt in eight years, Former President Donald Trump was a spendthrift who jacked up the debt by more, per year, in his four years in office than President Barack Obama did during his eight. Imagine introducing a bill in Congress today to hike taxes and cut entitlement benefits. Which political party would have a target on your back faster?

But for anyone who cares, the future is spelled out pretty clearly in the CBO's new report. The waiting, it turns out, might not be the hardest part—but it sure isn't going to help.

NEXT: Serial Killer Thriller Shining Girls Lulls You to Sleep Before Blowing Your Mind

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Reason's leading economics expert says debt is all Drumpf's fault and now that Democrats are in charge and the economy is fantastic, we can stop worrying.


    1. #TrillionairesForBidenflation

    2. The DEBT is not the DEFICIT. And the DEFICIT is not the DEBT.

      Government BORROWING drives up the debt, not government SPENDING.

      The solution to our debt problem is simple: STOP ISSUING DEBT-BASED MONEY! Begin issuing pure "unbacked" fiat money to fund the deficit, rather than going further into debt. The inflationary impact of unbacked dollars is no worse than the inflationary impact of the same amount of debt-backed dollars. Issuing unbacked dollars will halt the increase in the national debt and its hundreds of billions of dollars in annual interest. Paying off part of the maturing debt each year and rolling over the rest will eventually bring the national debt (and its taxpayer-financed interest payments) down to zero. See .

      1. Yes, we need more worthless money.

        1. We're going to get it anyway, but we shouldn't have to "borrow" it and pay interest on it.

          1. So rampant inflation is preferable because you don't like debt? I wish there were a way to assume that was other than parody. Or stupidity.

            1. Rampant inflation with debt is much worse than rampant inflation without debt. See .

              1. So stupidity; got it.

      2. Yeah, send everyone a million dollars. Inflation cured.

      3. That can work but you can't get there from here. In fact, we tried that during the Civil War. Soldiers were paid in greenback dollars. The government incurred some debt in explicitly gold-backed dollars, some in explicitly silver-backed dollars, rolled over prewar silver-backed. Newly chartered 'national' banks were required to hold their reserves in gold. State banks weren't. Oh - and the Franco-Prussian War permanently screwed up the gold-silver ratio from 1871 because the Prussians demanded their war indemnity be paid in gold which drove Frnce off the silver standard.

        When one tranche of war debt came due in 1873, it did require that all those different 'dollars' be equilibrated. That wasn't possible and is never practically possible. So instead, one group of 'creditors' (or currency users) gets an advantage and everyone else gets screwed. And it ain't ever the little guy who gets the advantage.

        1. Yes you can get there from here. None of our dollars are backed by gold or silver, so we don't have to deal with paying back the debt with hard money. Simply remove the debt "backing" from newly issued dollars, and use them to gradually pay off the national debt. See .

          1. No, you can't.

      4. Haha! We have the same problems as Germany and Hungry did. Every minority, oppressed group will want reparations, subsidies special treatment. . . AND our ball less Congress will accommodate.

      5. Another reason to issue bonds is to remove currency from the market similar to taxes. This will stop short term inflation (long-term it makes no difference as the bonds will have to be paid eventually). Bonds purchased directly by the fed (unbacked fiat money) is just extra money going into the money supply. This could be a good thing if you are fighting deflation or bad if the economy is not growing fast enough to keep pace with the increased money supply causing inflation.

        I mostly agree with you. Using non-backed fiat money makes sense for slowly getting rid of interest payments, but I'd be concerned about inflation due to no longer removing money from the economy through bonds.

        The problem with large national debt is often misunderstood. The focus should be on inflation. The issue with large debt is there is no easy way to pay it off without causing big time inflation or huge loss of government services. It is also a national security risk as foreign governments hold large amounts of US debt.

        I think this community would benefit greatly from understanding modern monetary theory. I know a lot of people scoff at it (including myself in the past) but it is correct descriptively. MMT also does not mean you can just print money with no consequences. That is a mischaracterization. There is a lot of good understanding of what money actually is to be gained from it. I imagine a lot of libertarian's are similar to conservatives in that personal responsibility is very important to you. Seeing a large National debt probably makes you feel we are being irresponsible. In some ways that is true, but don't fall into the trap of thinking national debt works the same way as personal debt. They operate quite differently.

        On the other hand, the prescriptions proposed by MMT economists are often quite silly (massive spending, federal guaranteed jobs program) and would lead to inflation and a weaker economy, but regardless, MMT is correct descriptively.

  2. the longer Congress waits to deal with the debt, the bigger the problem becomes.

    Not if they inflate the problem away.

    1. Those 'magical' resources falling from the sky will cover the bill?

    2. Except that the low inflation of the last 40 years is why the national debt has been manageable. The interest rates paid by the Treasury to borrow (or borrow) are paid for out of the budget, and are a function of inflation (and not the other way around). Doubling the interest that Treasury has to pay to borrow (and turn over) debt will more than double with a doubled interest rate, since that money has to be borrowed too.

      1. When the national debt was 10 trillion dollars (not that long ago, only 2008), a one-percentage point interest rate hike cost an extra 100 billion a year. Now the same rate hike costs 300 billion.

    3. As long as they get their pensions and appointments to various boards of directors, they'll be able to cope somehow.

  3. And yet so many "libertarians" voted for Biden, knowing his and the DNC platform and track record, all because of Trump's mean tweets. Ilya Somin actually said he would vote for Biden because Trump spent too much. Well, yes, he did; but Biden and the DNC promised to spend more. Did all these fools somehow think the Dems would break that promise?

  4. Reason still burying Biden's Ministry of Truth

    But hey, let's talk about an issue that no one in Washington will do anything about rather than try to strangle this hideous Disinformation board in its cradle

  5. "Former President Donald Trump was a spendthrift who jacked up the debt by more, per year, in his four years in office than President Barack Obama did during his eight."

    THAT IS A DECEPTIVE LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Democrats jacked up Trumps LAST-YEAR-ONLY to $5T by pitching the Cares Act and Thwarting its Vote.

    Just another -- It's the Republicans fault cause they didn't STOP-US B.S.

    Minus that ONE-BILL Trump maintained less debt-addition than Obama's entire first Term (with Democratic Congress) and that says a heck of a lot with USD inflation per-year (Per USD debt always rises with inflation).

    The only thing that stopped Obama's and his Democratic Congresses spending was electing a Republican Congress. It's as plain as day going from over $1T every year to the exact point Republicans took Congress and suddenly dropping to 1/2-that...

    This is the thing about Democrats.... They Project like nobodies business... They call everyone racist while pushing racism into their bills. They call everyone sexist while pushing gender favors into their bills.


    They call Republicans spenders while they SPEND, SPEND, SPEND.

    1. Why did Trump sign the bill instead of vetoing it?

      If Trump wants credit for bills he signed, he also gets blame for those he signed. A real man would have vetoed the damn bills and dared Congress to override his veto.

      1. Yes; That's a very fair way of saying it...
        ..but that alone doesn't uphold the original assertion.

        Trump does deserve blame for NOT standing up to UN-Constitutional Democratic National Socialism. Although in today's political environment that seems to be a lot to ask. Credit should be paid to Thomas Massie..

  6. The evil Republicans are hiding under your bed bohem better sound the alarm!

    Or slit your wrists

  7. "In short, taxes will have to go up and government services...will likely have to be reduced."

    Well no, taxes don't "have to go up." They could just cut the spending.

    1. Slash the federal government by 90%.

      Eliminate the income tax.

      Do it.

      1. It doesn't even have to be that dramatic. Cut spending by 10% (and lay off 20% of the federal work force, anyone deemed "non-essential" should be fair game.) Then cap spending to the current level, and wait a few years for tax revenues (at current rates) to catch up.

    2. The other thing to keep in mind is that increasing taxation to reduce the debt requires static scoring, which we have known for decades doesn’t work. The alternative, dynamic scoring, which does work, predicts that cutting taxes and spending both work. The problem is that government spending is, by its very nature, a frictional drain on the economy. It does not, and cannot create national wealth. It can only redistribute it, and the frictional cost of that is why the Keynesian Multiplier has repeatedly been shown to be less than 1 (as contrasted to Nancy Pelosi’s claim that it is 4-5). We are stuck with long debunked static scoring because Congress’ most important power is in spending money, and they won’t allow the CBO to engage in dynamic scoring, if it would mean that they would have to spend less money, as it most likely would.

      1. Good points, but econonmists still consider government spending as additive to GDP, when it's really a subtraction.

  8. Step 1: Cut spending until you no longer need to use new debt to pay off the old debt.

    Until that is accomplished, no amount of raising taxes will make a dent in the problem.

  9. Maybe this continued "conservative" and "libertarian" policy of tax-cuts-as-bribery is the libertarian way of crushing the United States in order to bend this place to their will. More than one way to skin a cat, right?

    All the time, all the freaking time, we hear how we had better cut spending and begin to address the fact that the US government has a problem raising money. But remember? The US government is not a conqueror that came in and assumed power over the people. Ideally, the government is the agent of the American people, and if we cut back on spending, the American people will lose, bit by bit, what political agency we have left.

    See? Libertarian conquest by tax cuts. The "conquering army" of libertarianism will streamline representative government by ridding themselves of it, and by replacing it with a hierarchical structure more amenable to kings, emperors, and Mussolini wannabes.

    After all, the government uses "a monopoly of violent force" in order to maintain order. The libertarian alternative? A human resources director. And big private penitentiaries so "oppressive government" can't profit from free prison labor.

    The interest on federal debt is outrageous. Perhaps one way of "defeating bank coercion" is to defend ourselves and simply default, and if the "banker enemy" gets its panties in a wad, we can tell them to take a hike.

    It's estimated that the upper one percent has six times the amount of money it reports socked away in all kinds of schemes. We could raise taxes on those people by 100 percent, add a wealth tax, and possibly fix the entire debt problem in half an hour.

    But you know...pookie might cry.

    1. Wow, guys and girls, this dude has uncovered our nefarious scheme to enslave people by letting them keep more of the fruits of their labor. Diabolical, right?

      1. LOL I've long made light of the fact the libertarians are doing all the heavy lifting for the Marxists who are the straw bosses waiting in the wings for this giant machine to spin out of control.

        "Smash The State!" libertarians might help their kleptocrat brethren give the commies a reason to stop all the license and chaotic weirdness poorly-thought ideas that government is always the problem are bringing about. If it gets bad enough, the Big Foot comes down.

        1. "LOL I've long made light of the fact the libertarians are doing all the heavy lifting for the Marxists who are the straw bosses waiting in the wings for this giant machine to spin out of control..."

          So you've been lying and making as ass of yourself for a long time? Good to know; fuck off and die, asshole.

          1. He’s Pedo Jeffy 2.0. New and improved with increased pomposity and verbosity. Did Jeffy finally eat enough Haagen-Daz to divide into two Marxist piles of goo?

      2. BTW, when the law is absent, "might makes right" makes an immediate comeback. Throughout history the strong have bullied the weak, and right now, in case you haven't been looking, wealth inequality is not only obliterating the middle class, it is creating two disparate "classes" the Marxists would call a bourgeoisie and a proletariat.

        Yep. Libertarianism's campaign to give people more of the fruit of their labors has created the prime conditions for communist revolution. Heavy lifting much?

        Try thinking of those entities that do not happen to be you. That's the very nature of the political.

        1. Because after 10 years of Obama control, with a brief 4 year trump hiatus where the economy actually improved, it sure is libertarian principles driving policy and the economy.

          Yep so many recent libertarian presidents and libertarian majorities in congress. It's totally our fault.

        2. Do you dislike Marxism?

        3. BTW.

    2. Uh, wrong. If you took all the wealth of the one percent, it wouldn't come close. Here are the richest Americans and their estimated wealth as of 4/25/2022:

      Elon Musk - $219 Billion
      Jeff Bezos - $171 Billion
      Bill Gates - $129 Billion
      Warren Buffet - $118 Billion
      Larry Page - $111 Billion
      Sergey Brin - $107 Billion
      Larry Ellison - $106 Billion
      Steve Balmer - $91.4 Billion

      Total: $1.054 Trillion - about 3% of the on-the-books debt

      The problem is most of that wealth is tied up in the stock market, specifically in the companies they started. A few days ago, Mark Zuckerberg was the 9th richest person in the world. Then Meta released its earnings and he fell to the 13th richest. The next day, the stock rebounded and he made $11 Billion - in ONE day. If you had to liquidate these people's holdings, the value would decrease precipitously and so would the rest of the market.

      People like to carp on the rich but there is only so much they can do with their money, namely:

      !. Spend it - say on a super yacht. Which provides how many jobs for tradesmen and others, all up and down the value stream?
      2. They can save it - in the banks or in Treasuries. Banks use the money to make loans to businesses and mortgages to homeowners. The Treasury uses it to offset its borrowings and the interest expense thereon.
      3. They can invest it - in stocks and other financial assets, including the companies they own and other businesses which provides growth capital to allow those businesses to expand and hire more people.
      4. It can be taxed away - only for the government to turn around and spend it away, albeit with a big haircut for all the bureaucracy feed off of.

      That's about it. Who would you rather have to manage the country's wealth, those one-percenters or the government?

      Together, they constitute less than 500 billion. That's all of 5% of the national debt. And while we're on it, let's talk about the unfunded liabilities that aren't on the balance sheet - future obligations on social security and Medicare. Add those in there, just like publically-held companies have to do, and you are talking north of $100 trillion. But don't worry, they'll print more.

      1. Spouting gibberish! Unfunded liabilities are estimated for a period of 75 years INTO THE FUTURE. Stop with the Chicken Little BULLSHIT. The federal govt can pay any debt denominated in dollars WITHOUT taxing or borrowing. In fact, it is impossible for the federal govt to "borrow" its own sovereign currency. Federal debt is nothing more than bank savings deposits at the Federal Reserve, and those bank savings deposit dollars are NEVER touched by the federal govt. The federal govt creates NEW dollars each and every time it spends. Federal tax dollars are just extinguished from the (M1) money supply. Debt is zero burden on the Monetarily Sovereign federal govt.

        1. "Spouting gibberish!"

          You are well practiced at it.
          Fuck off and die, asshole.

      2. Problem with your idea is that that one super yacht does not provide the opportunity that the same amount of money would spend on a wide group of middle-class consumers. Which provides more to the economy, one $500M yacht or $500M spend on cars, houses and appliances for consumers.

        1. LOL

        2. Right. Because that 500 million literally stays on the yacht in a safe until it sinks or burns down and then sinks, just like the castle in the swamp on Monty python.

          1. Basic economics tells us that money's effects in the economy is both amount and velocity. Smaller amount moving faster can have a better effect. This is the simple basis of the rise of the middleclass.

            Now if you or some economics professor out there wants to tell me I am wrong on this just tell me the name of the economic principle I am missing or cite the papers showing where one large purchase has the same effect as many small purchases.

            1. Define “better.”

        3. Who do you think builds and stocks the yacht?

      3. It's interesting how hard it is to find articles mentioning that SSA, Medicare and the rest is not included in debt. Regardless of how these figures are calculated, there USED to be a SS trust fund which was borrowed by Congress. Now all of it is paid from current income instead of savings. That severely impacts the deficit and that winds up leading us into debit. The US spent 1.5x more on COVID stimulus than it spent on WW2. To fight inflation, the Fed is raising interest rates. So the interest payments on the debt will go up. At some point, the math no longer works.

      4. JFV2000--

        You're writing about reported income. And cited eight (8) individuals, conveniently left out the multitude of billion-dollar + companies and corporations, and didn't check your facts.

        In 2021, it's estimated there are 22 million people in the US who own one million or more.

        1. Your ideas are moronic. Basically you’ve got nothing to say, and you’re writing an entire novel to say it.

          1. Certainly GH's ideas are moronic, but what do you expect from a moron?

        2. "It's estimated that the upper one percent has six times the amount of money it reports socked away in all kinds of schemes. We could raise taxes on those PEOPLE by 100 percent, add a wealth tax, and possibly fix the entire debt problem in half an hour."

          You're the one who made it about people, not corporations, dumbass.

        3. You.

    3. Spoken like a true Nazi...
      Paraphrased, "Allowing you to keep what you create/earn is ?bribery?...."
      Good grief Wow; Your slaver mentality is off the charts.

      The Nazi(National Socialism)-Regime keeps growing? True or False.. And wealth inequality does what???

      As-if Nazism didn't have a record of doing EXACTLY that. It's truly amazing how many times people can do the exact same thing and keep expecting a different result. National Socialism DOESN'T WORK nor does Communism. Get it out of the USA!!! Gain some principles like wealth has to be *EARNED* not stolen by Gov-Guns... How do you think those rich got so rich anyways??? Some *EARNED* it while others who don't deserve it used Gov-Guns to STEAL IT (i.e. Solar Grants, Regulations, --- all that UN-Constitutional stuff).

      1. TJJ2000--

        Oh. OK. Funding the government's activities = Nazism.

        Got any more good jokes? Here. A quick rundown of what National Socialism is:

        The "National" in the term refers to the "nation" of imaginarily concocted people called "Aryans", and the "Socialism" part of the term refers to the society made up of these imaginary Aryans. Other than that, Nazi Germany was an autocratic mess, a horribly inefficient hierarchical regime where underlings vied for favor from Adolph Hitler. While the Nazi Wehrmacht was indeed efficient, the Nazi Government barely functioned at all.

        Communism? That's state ownership of the means of production and all private property. Right now in the US we sport between 15 and 30 million market capitalist enterprises. And while socialist-structured companies are perfectly legal, they're usually small because the bigger they get, the harder they are to maintain. In a word: not a threat.

        John Locke must have been a commie because he unequivocally stated that those who do not consent to help fund the government should be deprived of all the capital and property they managed to garner from the advantages of having a coherent economic foundation based upon the law and government to which they do not consent. "Get it out of the country!" Yep. That was Locke's solution. And he's one of the founding philosophers of the ideas that led to the foundation of the US.

        1. You really are an idiot. Your semantical ‘definitions’ are shit. You’re just a windbag who probably thinks the Robert Reich crowd are totes intellectual. When in reality you’re a pseudo intellectual douchebag trotting out long discredited leftist tropes like the pyre clever or insightful. You’re like an even more boring Chemjeff. Who is a hybrid bad joke/punching bag around here.

          But hey, stick around if you want the same. Plenty of us are ready to dish it up for you.

        2. Lmao. The national in national socialist party means Germany. Hitler literally copied nazism from fascism. And mussolini created fascism by copying Marxism, but musollini felt Marxism was too ambitious/global and too prone to spreading itself thin. So he took the things he liked of marxism/socialism and added an extreme national pride element to them. Hitler loved that so he copied it and renamed his party.

        3. "Oh. OK. Funding the government's activities = Nazism...'

          Oh, OK, GH is a fucking ignoramus.

    4. You’re a delusional math challenged imbecilic cunt. Take your cuntiness and begone..

      1. It's pretty entertaining watching a keyboard warrior at work for no real purpose.

        1. Were you looking in the mirror when you received that bit of divine inspiration? The shit you spew here isn’t even as insightful as what came out of me the last time I had food poisoning. Although reading your drivel also indices vomiting.

        2. Not nearly as entertaining as watching a fucking ignoramus continue to prove it.

    5. Communism has failed, horrifically, in every nation is has been implemented in.

      Why do you idiots keep trying?

      1. They like people to die and be buried in mass graves.

      2. "Why do you idiots keep trying?"

        Criminal Mentality.. Steal, Steal, Steal by Guns if necessary.
        Their government ideology is just a self-justification delusion.

        I.E. They don't really believe it works or that it's not entirely criminal but to excuse their GREEDINESS they pretend armed robbery is charity.

        1. Right. "Taxation is theft". Maybe it seems like it is to those who don't consent to contribute to the government and to the laws that allow them to enrich themselves. That's fine. You don't have to consent. If you don't like the law, don't obey it. Put your money where your mouth is. Be sure you're willing to accept the consequences of disobedience. Thoreau accepted the consequences of his; you can too. Be brave. Buck the rules today.

          1. More smug pseudo intellectual offal from our new windbag. I’ll bet you thought referencing Thoreau makes you look clever.

            It doesn’t. “Frowny face”

          2. Right because this debate has nuance. It's either taxes are theft or taxes are required.

            Theres no Grey area where libertarians agree taxes should be paid to fund infrastructure and defense, but can argue over spending taxes on other things. And there's no Grey area to debate if we agree taxes should be spent on something, is it being efficiently used or is it going to line the pockets of bloated, greedy, labor unions at above market prices following the standard labor union racket.

            Nope. It's either all taxes are theft or all taxes must be paid. No room for nuance with this genius.

            1. The commentariat has picked up another winner with this Gordon Turd.

          3. Gov-Gun enforced "consequences of disobedience"...
            To HAND-OVER that money or else....

            See... Criminal in every sense of the word...
            UR but a proud greedy criminal.

      3. Communism has never been implemented anywhere in the world or in human history. The USSR (with its grandiose claims of a communist society) never got past the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat"--which was actually, "the dictatorship of The Party". That's kind of like what the GOP here wants.

        Socialism doesn't work nearly as efficiently as does capitalism, because capitalism is designed for efficiency and socialism isn't. The Soviets did try pure democracy in the workplace, but it was so cumbersome that sometimes it would take a week of struggling for consensus simply to decide how many threads to include on a screw. Thus, they shifted to a representational style--where The Party "represented" the workers, supposedly for their good. That corrupted quite quickly into Party dictatorship where Party members got the good stuff, and non-Party members got little to nothing.

        Government isn't the same thing as "communism".

        1. Lmao maybe full on, return it to the people, communism has never worked because it was never supposed to. Communism is nothing but a path to dictatorship and suppression of the citizenry in favor of the glory of the state.

          I'd think a genius intellectual like you could figure that out after nearly 100 years of historical examples of communism failing to do anything but promote dictators.

          But keep that hope alive! Maybe putin or Xi will magically decide to hand over the keys in the next few weeks. Would you like to put a wager that they will, and I'll wager they won't?

        2. "Communism has never been implemented anywhere in the world or in human history."

      4. Salted Nuts--

        The definition of communism is not "anyone I disagree with". Try to keep up. But hey, I do know that, with some people, the "commie" epithet has a meaning that changes with any expediency that may arise.

        1. Goddamn, you’re a real boorish boor. You’re the kind of stiff that makes Mitt Romney look like a hipster. Smug, self satisfied, and dull. I’ll bet you make lame jokes and you’re the only one who really laughs.

        2. You were literally just complaining that true communism has ever existed.

          I literally just replied to you crying about it, commie.

        3. "The definition of communism is not "anyone I disagree with"..."

          The definition of stupidity is Gordon Hilgers.
          Were you born this stupid, or did it take long years of practice?

    6. Government revenues have gone up every year, even when there have been tax cuts. Spending has gone up far faster though, and is the only thing increasing the debt.

  10. They will never stop. It will never end. They are going to take as far as they can without slowing down.

    They're going to burn it to the ground.

    1. So let’s put an end to them. Whittle their numbers until they become manageable.

      1. ^^^sounds quite Hitlerian. After all, the Nazis went after the socialists before they went after the Jews.

        1. Jews weren’t hurting anyone. Democrats are literally implementing ting a ‘Ministry of Truth’ to crush dissenting speech. They are also destroying our economy and sending us headlong into WW3, with an increasing chance of a nuclear exchange. Among so many other horrors.

          If you want to know who the Nazi is, you need only look in the nearest mirror.

        2. No, the nazis went after communists you fucking moron. Get your fucking history straight.

          And please, try telling me I'm wrong. And I'll give you the entire story of my Italian fascist/nazi (socialist) supporting great great uncles constantly fighting with, and eventually being kidnapped by, communists, in Northern Italy in 1942.

  11. Or we can just have WWIII. Which one do you actually think is the path of least resistance for our overlords?

    1. Truman should've nuked China and Russia after ww2 like he wanted.

  12. Federal “debt” is not debt in the usual sense. The federal govt DOES NOT BORROW. The so-called “debt” is the total of deposits into Treasury Security accounts at the Federal Reserve. The federal govt DOES NOT TOUCH these deposits, and the accounts can be paid off instantly by returning the balances to the account owners. No tax dollars are involved. No burden on future generations.
    Sad that goobers like Boehm keep spewing the same bullshit LIES, over and over.

    1. Dream on.

      1. I liked that show.

    2. Not even close. Yes, much of the debt is purchased by the Fed, which essentially (because it is mostly just them crediting bank accounts anymore) printing money. They are the borrower of last resort, which means that they don't have to step in when others, like ChiComs do. Everything else, the Federal Reserve, a part of the federal government (duh!), has to borrow to fund. If either the Fed or the Treasury quit paying off the money they borrowed, it is called “default”. That would be a really, really bad thing. The interest that they would have to pay on their debt would jump from maybe 4% to 15-20% or so, blowing up the rest of the budget.

    3. The Biden admin certainly wishes this were true. But sadly it isn't.

    4. "Federal “debt” is not debt in the usual sense. The federal govt DOES NOT BORROW. The so-called “debt” is the total of deposits into Treasury Security accounts at the Federal Reserve. The federal govt DOES NOT TOUCH these deposits, and the accounts can be paid off instantly by returning the balances to the account owners. No tax dollars are involved. No burden on future generations."

      Now tell us about Sandy Claws, you steaming pile of shit.

  13. Thanks for this article and for acknowledging that it will be necessary to both raise taxes and cut spending. The only way that can be accomplished is with moderate centrist from both parties. Electing more people from the fringes, left and right, is just a recipe for failure.

    1. So, Left + Right =Zero?

      1. Isn’t that always a part of Hihn’s posts before he croaked?

    2. You’re delusional.

    3. Why should our taxes go up because the government fucked up?

      I didn't vote for any of these democrats pushing all these trillions in spending that's causing runaway inflation and an economic recession. You did. So the tax burden should be on you and those who voted for these people.

      1. As the article notes the debt rises in administration of both parties. Recent history actually tells us that the debt is better, not well but better, handled under Democratic administration. So, this is not about blame but about addressing the problem and that starts with taxing at an appropriate level for the services government supplies.

        1. Holy shit, you are one delusional shill.

          1. It's spelled "stupid".

  14. No one is going to do anything. Be prepared for the fiscal crisis. It may be delayed longer than you think though.

  15. A 1% purchase tax & a 1% sales tax on stocks, corp. bonds, options, multi-trade commodities would generate a minimum of 350% more revenue, thus we could eliminate Federal income taxes for every American earning less than congress & eliminate corporate income tax. That will eliminate the double taxation and all capital gains taxes because income is income.

    1. In a word: No!

    2. Federal tax revenue for fiscal year 2021 was $4.05 trillion. You’re saying that your idea would generate $14 trillion?


    3. And mess up the stock and bond and options markets. What could possibly go wrong?

      1. While accomplishing little or nothing.

  16. Did we really need a CBO report to tell us that incurring more debt would be worse than not incurring more debt?

    1. I mean democrats need a PHD + DMD to tell them if a baby is a boy or girl so....

  17. If Republican voters cared about the national debt, Rand Paul would have been the nominee in 2016.

    If American voters cared about the national debt, Gary Johnson would have been elected President in 2016.

    1. And half of the democratic party, led by their personal godhead Block Insane Yomomma, actually WANTS to bankrupt and destroy the country because they think it will make it easier to replace the 1789 Constitution with a new more totalitarian system of government modeled on communist China.

    2. I’m not sure either one would have been able to push back 9n the democrats and RINO’s even as well as Trump did.

      1. Exactly. We got the best we could have hoped for, and it took a while to convince me; I was hoping for a non-lefty-shit SCOTUS nominee and got far, far better than that.

  18. Thanks for your beyond belief blogs stuff. looking for a Accountant In St Neots ? Check out this!

  19. Checks national debt clock....

    The debt is now up to 30.448 trillion, with the deficit this year projected to be over 2 trillion.

    I think they're still kicking the can.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.