The Political Class Has Consistently Ignored Warnings of Fiscal Doom. Now Americans Are Paying the Price.
Warnings of inflation and rising interest rates have long been tied to high and rising debt levels.

For well over a decade, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has been issuing stark warnings about the nation's current debt levels and the long-term buildup of debt they portend.
The ominous opening paragraph to the CBO's 2010 report on the nation's long-term budget outlook, for example, noted that "large budget deficits have caused debt held by the public to shoot upward; the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that federal debt will reach 62 percent of GDP by the end of this year—the highest percentage since shortly after World War II." Some of that was due to declining tax revenues and increased spending during the Great Recession, and some of the fiscal gap was expected to close as the effects of the crisis receded. But much of the projected long-term buildup of federal debt was a result of "an imbalance between spending and revenues" that predated the economic shocks of the late 2000s. The second paragraph makes the case rather bluntly: "Over the long term, the budget outlook is daunting."
Nearly a decade later, the budget outlook had, if anything, grown worse. The second page of the agency's 2019 budget outlook warns that "large budget deficits over the next 30 years are projected to drive federal debt held by the public to unprecedented levels—from 78 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019 to 144 percent by 2049."
Did you catch the jump there? In 2010, debt levels at 62 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) were the starting point for a long-term forecast that was "daunting." What would a starting point of 78 percent represent? Presumably something even worse than daunting.
The following year, debt levels skyrocketed even further, to around 98 percent of GDP. Admittedly, 2020 was an unusual year, due to COVID-19 and associated shutdowns and fiscal relief packages. But trillions of dollars in deficit-financed spending drove the annual budget gap through the roof and helped pile on debt. Yet even after the fiscal effects of pandemic policy wore off, the CBO projected "deficits in coming decades are projected to be large by historical standards."
Included in the upfront summary of findings for 2020 was another warning: "High and rising federal debt makes the economy more vulnerable to rising interest rates and, depending on how that debt is financed, rising inflation."
This was not a fundamentally new concern. The budget office had long warning, with varying degrees of alarm, that high debt levels could produce worrisome interactions with rising inflation and interest rates.
Back in 2010, the CBO noted that its already-alarming projections were probably not alarmist enough because they did not account for the possibility of increased interest rates, and that federal interest costs, already one of the nation's larger spending categories, would be "likely to grow substantially" when interest rates rose. Relatedly, the 2019 report warned "the projected increase in federal borrowing would lead to significantly higher interest costs. In CBO's extended baseline projections, net outlays for interest more than triple in relation to the size of the economy over the next three decades, exceeding all discretionary spending by 2046."
These sorts of warnings about debt, interest rates, and inflation were being delivered before the pandemic, and before the most rapid rise in inflation in 40 years prompted the Federal Reserve to begin rapidly raising interest rates.
The point of all those warnings over all those years was fairly clear: High debt levels represent a likely problem, period, since over time they will raise carrying costs, increasing the share of the federal budget that is devoted to debt service. Even in economic good times, that puts pressure on the rest of the budget. And in a crisis, it gives policymakers far less room to maneuver and threatens to strain the public fisc if they do.
The takeaway from all of this—the obvious action item—was that debt levels should be put on a downward trajectory to something more manageable and less risky. Inevitably, that work would be politically difficult, since it would involve some combination of higher tax rates and, limiting the scope of federal spending. Budget management would best be done earlier rather than later, in good times rather than in bad.
Yet as recently as 2021, well into the pandemic spending and borrowing spree, President Joe Biden was still insisting on more borrowing, on going big with spending plans essentially for the sake of going big, because the only real economic risk was in doing too little.
All of this was justified, Biden's economics team insisted, by the persistence of low interest rates that simply made borrowing a lot more money the right thing to do. As Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said at her confirmation hearing: "Neither the president-elect, nor I, propose this relief package without an appreciation for the country's debt burden. But right now, with interest rates at historic lows, the smartest thing we can do is act big."
The smartest thing we can do is act big.
Interest rates, you may have noticed, are no longer at historic lows, and they are likely to continue rising. And inflation has returned as both a problem for the political fortunes of Biden and his fellow Democrats and, more importantly, for American households. They did the "smart" thing and acted big, and this is what happened.
This week, total national debt reached $31 trillion. Federal debt is still rising, and Biden's policies are responsible for about $5 trillion of the increase, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The ominous fiscal trajectory the CBO warned about has continued, and the fiscal crunch that budget watchers have warned about is, to some degree, already here.
Yet the administration is still defending its approach. In a recent interview with The New York Times, White House economic policy adviser Jared Bernstein said: "Our budgets have been heavily fiscally responsible, and they build a very compelling architecture toward critical investments and fiscal responsibility. So it would be a mistake to overtorque in reaction to current events."
Critical investments, in this case, means "spending." Fiscal responsibility, meanwhile, is probably a reference to the administration's eyebrow-raising claims that Biden's policies have reduced the federal budget deficit.
These claims are laughable: This year's drop is largely a result of the end of one-time pandemic policies that were intended to sunset. The on-paper deficit reduction in the Inflation Reduction Act is totally wiped out by the administration's decision to cancel vast swaths of student loan debt. On the contrary, the Biden administration's policies have put the federal budget on a trajectory toward a long-term increase in deficits. Biden's claims of fiscal responsibility rest entirely on easily discerned sleight of hand. Yet his administration clings to this illusion because that's all it has.
A few months ago, the CBO once again issued a report looking into America's fiscal future. The present, it admitted, was worse than it had expected. Prices were rising faster than it had anticipated even the previous year, and it expected interest rates to be higher. Debt loads, meanwhile, are expected to increase, reaching $40 trillion, or the equivalent of 110 percent of the nation's total economy, in a decade—double the average of the last 50 years, and the highest in recorded history.
If so, the report warned, that will have consequences. Among the possible outcomes: "The likelihood of a fiscal crisis in the United States would increase. Specifically, the risk would rise of investors' losing confidence in the U.S. government's ability to service and repay its debt, causing interest rates to increase abruptly and inflation to spiral upward, or other disruptions." The fiscal warnings are still coming. But it sure doesn't seem as if anyone in power is actually listening.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Political Class Has Consistently Ignored Warnings of Fiscal Doom.
Well they didn't expect it to all come crashing down while they were in office!
What do you mean "crashing down"? They can always print more money to pay everyone off, right?
I just determined that Moonrocks is Stephanie Kelton.
In only 5 weeks, I worked part-time from my loft and acquired $30,030. In the wake of losing my past business, I immediately became depleted. [res-10] Luckily, I found this occupations on the web, and subsequently, I had the option to begin bringing in cash from home immediately. Anybody can achieve this tip top profession and increment their web pay by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://extradollars3.blogspot.com/
They can indeed.
I just worked part-time from my apartment for 5 weeks, but I made $30,030. I lost my former business and was soon worn out. Thank goodness, [rea-04] I found this employment online and I was able Ham to start working from home right away. This top career is achievable by everyone, and it will improve their online revenue by:.
.
EXTRA DETAILS HERE:>>> https://jobopportunity22.blogspot.com
well. if I muted all the puerile and easy money posts in these comments I'd have a pretty short time of it. and if I could consider all the muted messages I would know why libertarians struggle to get 1% of the vote. oh, wait.....
I'm the last he/she/it to let the political class off the hook, but let's face it: 95% of everyone in America has consistently ignored warnings of fiscal doom. The political class, as usual, just played to the voter's id like it always does.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35600 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28600 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
Just open the link-------------------->>> https://smart.online100.workers.dev/
Nothing but Gloom and Doom from the Scumbags at Reason now that the Republicans aren't spending the country into the poor house.
Every dime of America's national debt has been created by Libertarian economic policy known as "starve the beast".
The libertarians are in power? What's the color of the sky on your planet? Must be nice to blame all your problems on the non-participants.
Apparently he can't read. 31 trillion debt. Biden added 5 trillion ~ %16 percent in 2 years. Yet it's the GOP/Libertarians are the issue.
I don't think he is even on a planet. Just floating in space.
Not just when they are in office but also when they are alive. How many older Americans, my age for example, don't care because they will be dead before a real debt crisis. People my age benefit from low taxes and high level of services. The best part is we will likely be dead before the bills comes due.
Great economy. Zero inflation. Rig count up. Biden awesome.
#TemporarilyFillingInForButtplug
Rigged count way up.
#FillingInForReality
Comedian Dennis Miller always said Biden is stunningly stupid. But the reason he gives is telling, and you see it now in full play. He is always telling people how smart he is. Smart people do NOT do that.
I think -- and have for sure since the Thomas hearings--- thought that the chief self-recrimination of Biden is that he knows he's stupid. Stupid and lazy.
I have been skeptical of Biden since he called himself a stable genius and lied about willingness to release tax returns.
Rev is making this statement, tongue in cheek. He's referencing Trump, not Biden. TDS is terminal dude.
Btw, remember how Obama immediately release his birth certificate and college transcripts? Oh wait, that's never happened.
"Rev is making this statement, tongue in cheek. He’s referencing Trump, not Biden. TDS is terminal dude..."
We can hope. The world would be a far better place if the asshole bigot would fuck off and die.
BTW Rev shit-for-brains, mark your grave so we all know where to piss.
Wow a sane comment from the Rev.
Not at all. As Jason points out he is referencing Trump which in the face of Biden/Harris epic evolving failures, is all he has.
Dennis Miller Hasn't said anything even remotely funny in the last 100 years.
Tell us you don’t understand Miller’s comedy without telling us you don’t understand Miller’s comedy.
“How can I be overdrawn, I still have checks?” is a joke that no one understands anymore.
+
I guess they figure that if they succeed in starting World War 3 the debt won't matter any more.
With inflation at 10%, 30 trillion will be like 15 trillion before you know it.
Nor is you have to pay high interest rates and your other costs rise with inflation while your revenues don’t.
Why would Trump's favorite dictator - Vlad the incompetent - start a nuclear war? I don't see any reason he would start one.
LOL
Okay Senator McCarthy, we get it, you don’t like Russia because they spent all those hundreds of thousands on Facebook ads that single-handedly defeated the Hag in 2016.
Timed perfectly to coincide with nuclear annihilation?
Biden just said at a fundraiser that the risk of nuclear war is the highest it's been since 1962. Who would've thought that Putin wouldn't react well to the POTUS stating that an outcome that leaves Putin in power isn't acceptable to him?
Seems to me that Biden warning us about rising risk of war is like Dahmer complaining about the increasing number of heads in his freezer.
No one in Washington DC gives a fuck and hasn't since Simpson-Bowles got squashed by BOTH parties worst zealots.
Fatass Donnie said debt is good and winning is all that matters as the deficit went from $480 billion to over $2.5 trillion while he looked on in pleasure.
And Biden is sleep-walking because he doesn't have much time left anyway. Biden is a natural lame duck.
OWNIN' THE LIBS IS ALL THAT MATTERS BOYS!
Nobody wants to own libs. They're not known for their work ethic.
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
Boys?
Way to micro-aggress and/or misgenderize OpenBordersLiberaltarin. You are so insensitive.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, a TDS-adddled pile of shit, and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
Preach it, Brother Sevo.
Turd is a kiddy diddler?
Trump only diddled his daughter as far as we know.
Trump is Ashley Biden’s father? Who knew! I wonder if he sniffed her in the shower too.
I do think Simpson-Bowles was a key start on the problem and as you noted it got squashed quickly. It would be great to bring it back but that takes moderates, a rare breed today.
Better Americans should insist that the parasitic (uneducated, economically inadequate) Republican states stop freeloading. I see no benefit to continuing to subsidize the bigoted, superstitious slack-jaws.
In this thread, the Kirkles subroutine goes full fascist and says that people in republican states aren't american.
I thought he was suggesting work camps.
I have that idiot muted, but if Republican states aren't American than just let them secede and be done with the experiment. California won't be far behind, which tells you something about the current state of American politics.
Isn't it time to start dropping Republicans into the middle of the Pacific Ocean?
You know, I've always wondered why that guy named himself after Costco brand products.
Worse. Anime.
So, national divorce? I'm good with that.
Not without Kirkland imposing a totalitarian state on his enemies. That's his dream fantasy.
Little does he know is that people will fight him to prevent that...
Preferably with areas of secession allowed to and a 1000% tax on goods from the traitors levied by each side.
Let the cities starve in the dark without water.
BUT BY GOD WE GOT UR ABORTION BAN BOYS!
#FederalistSocietyRules
You do know there's bans on child porn, don't you? It's what got you banned here before.
There is no federal abortion ban and you know it.
Do not forget, turd lies, It's all turd ever does.
Abortion Ban = FreeeeeeeeeeeeeDummmmmmmmmmmmbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb
They need to bring back “add a caption” to the pic that leads this article.
WE"LL GIT HERSCHEL RIGHT ON THIS FIRST THING!
#RepublicanHaveAllTheAnswers
Wow Mr. Buttplug. You take it really personally when Black bodies disobey your "get in line and vote Democrat" instructions.
#IfYouAintWithBidenYouAintBlack
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate.
https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836
Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
I'll endorse any policy, as long as it doesn't make me look like a Republican.
Still not a short as 'free minds and free markets' but otherwise substantially more accurate.
Boy, someone is kind of jumpy in the comments over this story.
The political class has given Americans what they want: massive Keynesian stimuli, big government handouts, cheap crap from China, cheap domestic help and services courtesy of illegal workers, US military occupying half the world, giving half the country meaningless academic degrees, the false belief that a long and healthy life can be achieved by massive spending on healthcare while stuffing your mouth with crap, etc.
Face it: the state of the country and the political class are a reflection of what Americans want and believe. Americans have become fat, lazy, entitled, greedy, and uncompetitive.
US democracy works: Americans are merely paying the price for their own choices and only have themselves to blame.
Don’t feel too bad about it: Europeans are even worse.
HERSCHEL WORKIN' ON IT !!!
Some say Herschel is just Warnock with an R after his name.
A few years back you posted kiddy porn to this site, and your initial handle was banned. The link below details all the evidence surrounding that ban. A decent person would honor that ban and stay away from Reason. Instead you keep showing up, acting as if all people should just be ok with a kiddy-porn-posting asshole hanging around. Since I cannot get you to stay away, the only thing I can do is post this boilerplate. https://reason.com/2022/08/06/biden-comforts-the-comfortable/?comments=true#comment-9635836 Don't respond to SPB, just shun him.
#FillingInForOvert
Republicans in general are still better than Democrats on pretty much every issue. And Walker is certainly better than that a--hole Warnock.
Most of that stems from the corrupt intermingling of the political class with the capitalist class, a state of affairs that libertarianism exists to bring about.
Do you blame the politicians? They're doing what they need to get elected. The capitalists? They're doing what they need to make more money.
If we're going to blame anyone, I say let's blame the people who deliberately worked to make this system happen. Physician, fuck thyself.
You're an idiot since Democrats, and to a slightly lesser extent Republicans, are the one's that put their thumbs on the scale of 'capitalism' which by necessity means it puts them in a position to pick and choose winners and losers. That's what regulations do, son.
'Libertarian' doesn't even enter the discussion here.
Also, I can't help but notice the inherent loathing of 'capitalism' in your screeds even though it's the very instrument by which you're able to complain about it in the first place. Amusing.
Oh no! Rich capitalists have worked the system and now the government answers to them instead of them answering to the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government! Let's give more power to the government so it can control the rich who control it! Oh no, the rich still control the government!
No, most of that stems from idiots like you thinking that the government is Santa Claus and your fairy godmother combined.
Libertarianism wants to abolish the political class, not "intermingle" it with anything.
I do: I blame the American voter. I blame idiots like you.
You want to abolish the political class? How does that work precisely?
Because so far they haven't gone anywhere as small-government philosophy has justified endless corruption. Do we have to live with that until this mythical government-free utopia emerges, or are you just waiting for the right moment to murder all politicians?
Once you've identified the corruption that results from the collusion between the political and capitalist classes, do you think the sensible impulse is to want to increase or decrease the size and influence of the political class given that it is the political class upon which the capitalist class depends for its influence?
"You want to abolish the political class?..."
Much prefer to abolish steaming piles of lying lefty shits like you.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Simple: you reduce the budget, power, and scope of the federal and state governments to a few percent of GDP. Eliminating the pay and benefits of politicians and reducing the pay and benefits of government employees also helps.
No, Tony, murdering politicians is what you and people like you want to do.
Reducing the size of government, on the other hand, makes government unattractive so people naturally choose different careers.
Small-government philosophy is very different from no-government philosophy.
Yet neither you nor Tony believe in either.
Well said.
To be honest, if this were a Libertarian site they'd be calling out the spending and not the debt. Fact is they're fully behind the spending but not the debt which means increases in taxes for an ever intrusive State, so libertarian.
Preemptive, before we have to read another uninformed comment about how this or that Reason writer shouldn't have voted for Biden:
PETER SUDERMAN
Features Editor
Who do you plan to vote for this year? I do not plan to vote for anyone, for reasons that Katherine Mangu-Ward laid out in her 2012 feature, "Your Vote Doesn't Count." But also because I regret the one presidential vote I did cast.
If you could change any vote you cast in the past, what would it be? I have voted in a national election only once, in 2004, and thus I have only one possible vote to change. But I would probably change it, if I could. The reason I voted in 2004 was mostly because I failed to vote in 2000—when I was a Florida resident living out of state while attending college. You may remember there was some fuss about Florida during the 2000 presidential election, including a fair amount of concern over absentee ballots. So I felt some pressure not to allow that to happen again. I voted for George W. Bush. That didn't go so well either. If I had to do it over again, I would decline to vote.
Don't believe what he says. Everyone knows he's got TDS because he said mean things about Trump, which means he's a leftist who always votes for Democrats. C'mon. He writes for Reason which is a far-left publication. So don't read what he says about himself. Read what other people write about him. They know the truth.
Isn't it interesting that Laursen and Sarc both ignore the content of the article to initiate attacks on other commenters? Sometimes it seems they have no interest in the subjects and are merely here to make it impossible to discuss anything.
They do get bonus points for whining that others also do what they do. Proving standards don't apply to left wingers is certainly worthwhile.
Was that an attack on you? Did I mention you personally? Did I say “Marshal is a dimwitted team player who goes around saying ‘Hurr Durrr Suderman voted for Biden ignore what he says’ because he’s a reflexive partisan moron?” No. I didn’t. I didn’t say anything about you at all. So why you getting all worked up like I dumped sand into your panties?
Note the underlying principle that one cannot criticize something unless they were directly attacked. We've discovered yet another standard sarc applies to others but not himself or to the left generally. To him standards exist only to judge the right.
Any person with at least two senses could understand why someone would vote for a Democrat in 2016 or 2020. Even if they hated Democrats for reasons so deep they can't explain them without spittle.
I think anyone who has voted for a Republican at any time in the past 40 years is either evil or stupid, but I'm willing to forgive some of them for their error. Not Trump. He's obviously a corrupt, dangerous moron of infinite proportions. Nobody should feel defensive for voting against that.
Because Hillary Clinton was so great that even Democrats couldn't vote for her.
She was fine and millions more people voted for her than Trump.
She was fine
No, she wasn't. Many saw her as the lesser of two evils, which is understandable. Many also saw Trump as the lesser of two evils, which is also understandable.
"...Many also saw Trump as the lesser of two evils, which is also understandable."
And then he turned out to be the best POTUS in a century, to those who bothered to watch what he did, instead of maintaining an adolescent focus on his personality.
"....best POTUS in a century...."
Yes, that's correct, steaming pile of lefty shit.
She was not fine. She has an unappealing personality in the first place, and then went around insulting people whose vote she needed as "deplorables" on top of that.
it's revealing people now pretending they care about classified documents in Trump's control have no concern about Hillary Clinton keeping classified documents. One of the problems unprincipled partisans have when speaking is contradicting their supposed principles, revealing their only concern is partisanship.
Of course! It's because those people are ignorant, greedy, racist, entitled bums like you. It's perfectly understandable, that doesn't make it any more excusable.
We’re watching the inevitable outcome of Dem policies, out of control inflation, economic recession, and open criminality and corruption. People like Tony who desire the instability and suffering this brings protect it by whining about Republicans.
Ah, both runaway inflation and recession. How do they manage it? Of course, no administration could be as free of corruption as the Trump one, which was so outlandishly corrupt there's hardly a jurisdiction in the country that's not investigating it.
Your choice is stupid or evil, and I'm going to go with the evidence.
Ah, both runaway inflation and recession. How do they manage it?
By printing money.
Of course, no administration could be as free of corruption as the Trump one, which was so outlandishly corrupt there’s hardly a jurisdiction in the country that’s not investigating it.
And yet after six years still can't find anything to actually charge him with.
Why couldn't the Democrats come up with someone, anyone, more appealing as a candidate than Hillary Clinton?
It's almost like all the other candidates were shoved out of they way during the primaries.
Because that wasn't the objective.
As far as I could tell, the objective was to give her “her turn” (mostly because she controlled the central committee).
"Any person with at least two senses could understand why someone would vote for a Democrat in 2016 or 2020..."
Anyone with at least a room-temperature IQ would understand you are full of shit.
Why did not the network broadcast and print media sound the alarms bells?
Because a serious man in the grown-up party said "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".
Now we all know that serious man was full of shit.
But he was a member of the "fiscally responsible" party.
(this is actual history)
Sigh.
Oh yeah? Well people say you did some shit a long time ago and that means you're wrong!
AYFKM? It wasn't a long time ago. You hate the rest of the commentariat so much that you are gaslighting for a guy that calls himself Buttplug.
In case you were not aware, there is a pill that can solve all your problems. It contains about 90gr of lead and copper and two cost less than $0.50, so you can afford an extra if the first fails to do the trick.
So the network broadcast and print media are in the habit of taking these people at their word?
Both Team Red and Team Blue have a collection of media outlets that take them at their word.
Do shut up. Conservatives are persecuted in the media. They have no means of spreading information. That's why FOX News, talk radio, and right-wing websites don't exist. There's simply no way for people on the right to access news from their point of view. It's quite simply impossible.
We had the opportunity at the end of the Cold War to change the direction of the federal budget. We were just barely at the point where we did not need to keep borrowing yearly and the baby boomers were at peak economic power.
But think of the Military-Industrial-Complex! Think of millions of bureaucrats, teachers, and other "public servants"! They all depend on government largesse, they have lots of political power, and they don't want to have to get a real job!
Yeah, no. That's no fun. Besides, they Always Need MORE.
The Federal Reserve makes more possible. Gold and silver coin were the leash on the government. Has anyone bought a war bond lately?
Will you look at that. Yet another article from Reason blaming everything on Trump without even mentioning the current president. Why? Because he's a Democrat and Reason always gives them a pass. Fucking ridiculous. Trump hasn't been president for a couple years now and they're still blaming him for everything. Total TDS.
Zzzz. Please find new material.
I will as soon as the usual suspects stop pinching their noses and shrilly whining like old women whenever Reason says "Boo" about their precious Republicans and their God Emperor Trumpypoo.
Your absurd tactic of preemptively dragging out Trump and TDS in every thread about Biden is as obvious as it is tedious. You even had to do it twice in this thread just to make sure that you get your own insults and don't have to share them with White Mike after he stole your schtick.
It's not sarcasm, just fallacy. It is broken and pathetic.
"You even had to do it twice in this thread just to make sure that you get your own insults and don’t have to share them with White Mike after he stole your schtick."
I wonder if they compare the insults they get when they use this transparent tactic to get replies, sort of like baseball cards or something. Or maybe it just as a simple as "Oh man, Jesseaz-senpai noticed me!" when he inevitably shows up.
Or maybe I'm pointing out the stupidity of the people who constantly lament at how Reason is a leftist rag run by leftist leftists who print leftist shit in favor of leftists because they're a bunch of left-leaning leftists.
Maybe I struck a nerve because the ones bitching the most are the ones who can't start shouting "Reason is a bunch of leftists!" because I beat them to it and soundly mocked them.
Perhaps you're mad because I not only stole your thunder, but showed it to be nothing but a fart in a bathtub.
Preemptively mocking people for things they have not said yet. You openly admit to being a textbook troll. When confronted you pretend that it is an art form?
Pathetic. Broken. Sad.
"Perhaps you’re mad because I not only stole your thunder, but showed it to be nothing but a fart in a bathtub."
I know its hard to keep track of people that you troll, but I never made any claims about how Reason reports their stuff in the manner you are suggesting. I just know I can expect to see you (and now) people like Mike and Brandybuck go through the same tired routine in articles like these. Every. Single. Time.
You're usually quick enough to get it at the top of the comment section, but I guess you're slipping. If you insist on doing this, do it right at least.
I never made any claims about how Reason reports their stuff in the manner you are suggesting.
I thought about that after I made the post and I do apologize. I kept it because I thought the fart joke was funny.
The reason why I keep doing this tired routine is because if I don't, then people in total seriousness will say things not that dissimilar from what I mockingly post. They will mean it. And a dozen people in the comments will genuflect to the righteous attack on leftist Reason.
Don't get mad at me. Get mad at the idiots who feel that anything critical of their team equals support for the other.
ZZZZ...
Please fuck off and die, asshole
Have you, Nardz, JesseAz, Ted, Chuck, R Mac, Mother's Lament, Don't look at me!, and the rest of you righty-tighty asshats come up with a name for your militia yet? Have you gotten matching t-shirts? Have you decided which neighborhood you're going to shoot up first?
I can get you the answer to all of your questions if you just give me your address.
Bring it, buddy. Public duel. Pick a place in Maine, tell me the time. I'll go looking for the jackass with a rubber chicken stapled to his head.
I do have a couple questions. Do you want me to kill you with a revolver or a pistol? Would you prefer I perforate you with ball or expanding bullets?
Grossly overreacting to an obvious joke as if it is a threat, even though it was a response to your mischaracterization of people who are critical? Funny how you jump straight to murdering people who voice their displeasure with your antics. I am sure neighbors and co-workers appreciate the warnings regarding your inability to control your impulses.
Remember last time you had an anxiety attack while complaining I threatened to murder you? Everybody else does. But since I would never harm someone I don't know, let alone the people I am supposed to love and protect, I am not the one that ends up as fodder for the insult comics in the commentariat.
ZZZZ…
Please fuck off and die, asshole
You left out Idaho Bob. Well, he’s more of a hole up on his property with a stockpile of weapons type of guy.
ZZZZ…
Please fuck off and die, asshole
Asshole, try posting once when or if you are ever sober.
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.
Don't forget the part where you ignore the people who legitimately criticize your fallacious argumentation and dishonesty while claiming they are part of the 'other team'. And how you gaslight for the village idiot, a fatass CRT promoter, and a demonstrated kiddie porn poster just because you hate the same people they hate.
To be fair (to be faaaaair)...
I also enjoy fart jokes. We're not so different, you and I.
If government debt is your big concern, then you must favor raising taxes. Anything else is just lying.
Because reducing spending is never an option, of course.
If government debt is your big concern, then you must favor cutting spending. Anything else is just lying.
Sure, but if you're talking about cutting off Social Security and medicare before you raise a cent in taxes for zillionaires, you're not only proposing politically untenable actions, you're expressing a bankrupt, kleptocratic morality. By all means, just say what you're for specifically and demand that the politicians you vote for follow suit.
I find that whenever someone says “Sure, but if you’re talking about…” whatever follows is not something you’re talking about.
Let’s get real for a moment, Tony. The average person has only so much income, so to save money they need to spend less. That’s what I taught my kid. How do you save money? Don’t spend it. Easy in principle, not so much in practice. The average person can’t just go around and rob people when they’re broke. That’s what government does.
So why not apply to government the rules that the rest of us have to follow? Things like… I dunno… save money by not spending it! Yeah, that’s it!
My solution to the federal deficit is not original. Smarter people than me came up with it. But it would still work. It’s really simple: Freeze spending for a little while. That’s it.
Revenue will go up because of inflation. But keep spending frozen. Before long revenue will catch up with spending. Then you’ve got a balanced budget! No need to kill your grandma or rob your uncle. Just freeze spending for a couple years. That’s it.
I don't see where sarcasmic proposed cutting Social Security and Medicare specifically. I'm pretty sure the Federal government spends money on other things in addition to Social Security and Medicare.
The only way to make meaningful cuts to the federal budget is to cut entitlements. That's the biggest item. More than defense and all that silly stuff authorized by the Constitution.
Though my proposal isn't to cut. I say eliminate baseline budgeting.
Biden’s 5 trillion addition to the 30 trillion debt is not social security or Medicare. That 5 trillion could be cut right now.
Shut up Toni.
“…..kleptocratic…..”
Lol. Even when you find the right word you can’t get anything right.
There’s nothing more tenable and moral about current spending than current tax rates.
Even if I agreed that in some limited scope, raising taxes was needed to mitigate the debt, the idea that "anything else is just lying" is just lying. The idea that 14,987% of everything the government spends money on is totally needed, necessary, and Western Civilization would crumble without it is laughable on its face. The idea that any cuts in spending which falls into the category of "anything else" is "off the table" then you're not a serious person worth debating.
You want to cut $30 trillion from the budget?
Yes.
Yes
I've literally never seen a Tony post that wasn't mind-numbingly stupid. He constantly wins dumbest comment of the day. Its actually quite impressive. I suspect it's on purpose because it's so hard for me to believe this level of idiocy could be earnest.
There's no reason to raise taxes. Simplify the tax code, removing all special interest deductions, would have the same impact.
MOAR REVENUES!!!! is not the answer
Which will never happen because tax exemptions are the easiest way for politicians to dole out favors.
If some people are paying more taxes, that's raising taxes.
I am with you because I don't characterizes taxes as the means of paying for government programs but largely as a disincentive to hard more wealth than you are entitled to.
How much wealth is a person entitled to?
as much as he earns (or creates)
I don’t characterizes taxes as the means of paying for government programs but largely as a disincentive to hard more wealth than you are entitled to.
I know you like to pretend that Marxism is an alt-right buzzword that is completely meaningless, but that statement could be taken from any textbook on Marxism. Right down to the shitty editing and the open disdain.
Who decides how much wealth any person is entitled to? Other people? That has never worked out once throughout human history. It lead to the death of 100 million people in the 20th century. It has lead to billions of people still living in misery under an elite few.
If higher taxes meant more money to pay for existing shit without adding on more shit, then I'd be in total agreement with you. Raise taxes and use the difference to eliminate the deficit and work towards eliminating the debt. I'm on board.
But that isn't the way it works. They increase taxes and spend even more than the taxes bring in, increasing the deficit and debt.
I'd say cut spending, but that's not realistic. So then I say freeze the budget. Keep spending the same. Let inflation gut the federal budget just like it guts the budget of so many Americans.
Raising taxes doesn't fix government debt.
If you want to fix government debt, your only choice is to greatly reduce spending, eliminate most entitlements, and lower taxes.
This is addition and subtraction dude.
"Dude", it is not "addition and subtraction" because the economy doesn't work that way: beyond a certain point, raising taxes doesn't actually raise government revenue, it actually lowers it.
That's why the only way to reduce government debt in our current situation is to reduce spending and increase economic growth. You increase economic growth by reducing taxes and by reducing government spending.
To understand Tony you must understand that not giving is taking and not taking is giving.
If I don't rob Peter to pay Paul, I'm stealing from Paul and giving to Peter.
Not-stealing is a gift, and not passing along that stolen loot is thievery.
So a tax cut is a gift to the person who pays less taxes, while a spending cut is an act of theft against the recipient of the spending.
That's now Tony's mind works.
If government debt is your big concern, then you must favor raising taxes.
Research project for you:
How many times has raising taxes resulted in paying down debt vs. how many times has raising taxes resulted in increased spending?
I'm only talking about a bare minimum of basic logic. You can't cut your way to paying off $30 trillion. You have to take it from the private sector, which should be fine since printing money and giving it to the private sector is how the debt gets there in the first place.
But you're right that tax rates and government spending are two separate policy items. Political will has a bias toward more spending, but it so happens that it also favors higher taxes on the rich, so there's an easy solution to your problem that doesn't take any basic services away from poor people. It's only your zealous, dissembling ideology getting in the way of solving the problem.
So I'm going to take that as "zero times."
Remind me again why raising taxes is the solution to the debt problem when those taxes aren't going to be used to pay the debt?
Is that the only solution?
Instead of raising taxes on "the rich", who already pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes, what about reducing payouts to "the rich"? I.e. more means testing, smaller entitlements. Oh, and not bailing out student loans?
Your logic is the logic of a welfare recipient paying off his credit card debt.
A $30 trillion debt wouldn't be a significant problem if the country had healthy 5-7% annual growth rates, because the debt would effectively be cut in half every decade even if we didn't pay a dime of it back.
What you are really advocating is continuing to take money from the productive part of the private sector and then continue handing that money to well-connected government cronies. That's at the heart of the massive corruption scheme you and your ilk advertise.
Yes, and you can see the consequences of that "political will" in nations like Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Venezuela.
since it would involve some combination of higher tax rates and, limiting the scope of federal spending.
That's pretty unimaginative. In the first place, the evidence that increasing tax rates increases tax revenue is...lacking. Second, we can get there by gutting spending by itself. Those of us who are productive get next to nothing for our indulgences, and eliminating the host gives the parasite the motivation to get its act together.
Oh, and any article on fiscal responsibility that fails to mention the damage Social Security and Medicare do is not serious.
That’s pretty unimaginative. In the first place, the evidence that increasing tax rates increases tax revenue is…lacking.
Tax increases are increases in spending. Period, the end.
Literally the opposite of facts.
How many times has raising taxes resulted in paying down debt vs. how many times has raising taxes resulted in increased spending?
Above, your answer to this question seemed to be "zero," or did I misinterpret?
Literally the opposite of facts is your idea that raising taxes results in a decrease in government debt.
Don't even need to gut spending. Just freeze it for a few years and the budget will balance. Sure it will suck for the employees and beneficiaries who won't get raises for a little while, to whom I say fuck you you're not entitled to the property of other people go fuck yourself.
but you should ALSO gut spending regardless.
The federal government's budget should be slashed by at least 90%.
You're missing my point. Eliminate baseline budgeting. On paper there are no cuts.
There is one skill that politicians are expert in: blame-shifting. No matter how ignorant they are; no matter how ridiculous their laws and public policies may be; they are NEVER responsible for the disasters they and their laws, regulations and policies cause. It's always someone else's fault.
If bad crap happens while your party is in power, blame the previous administration. If good stuff happens while your party is in power, take all the credit.
If good stuff happens under divided government, take the credit. If bad stuff happens, blame obstructionists.
You get the picture. What do they say? Head I win, tails you lose?
ZZZ...
Fuck off and die, steaming pile of lefty shit.
“Gradually, then suddenly.”
The fugazi libertarians of Reason (like Pete MacAdoodle Suderweigel) would have so much more credibility on this topic if they didn't lose their minds whenever there was a threat of a "government shutdown".
On those very rare occasions when republicans actually make some sort of attempt to rein in spending, the fugazis always end of saying "just shut up you republicans and pass the democrats budget already."
And I fully expect the same exact thing to happen should the new republican led House put up any sort of spending resistance to Joe Biden's obscene, out of control spending next year. Because after all, why would we expect the next time be any different around here than the last couple of times?
There's more than a little truth to this. Yes, the GOP deserves blame for not aggressively cutting spending when they're in power. But, I'm old enough to remember when the GOP actually did try to do something on spending when there was a Democratic president. And Reason pretty much accused them of "theatrics" and "fiscal irresponsibility". Notably, Reason identified a Democrat as a paragon of fiscal responsibility for signing off on a tax increase, just as long as some of it was set aside for deficit reduction (the feds have since allocated even more than was set aside for new programs). I don't think fiscal restraint means what Reason thinks it means.
When was the last time Reason advocated for a fair, across the board, plain and simple 10% or 5% or even 2% budget reduction without any of the usual distractions and bullshit?
Not within the last 15 years or so, that's for damn sure!
The Social Security and Medicare Trustees have also been screaming from the rooftops. They release a summary every year, with barely a blip in the media. This past year, they basically said they have no idea what covid lockdowns did to the solvency of both programs, and made their calculations as if the massive hit to our economy and employment that was covid never happened. Their conclusion is that every single Social Security check will be cut by almost 25% starting in 12 years. No means testing allowed under the current system.
The chance that covid didn't change those calculations, or improved them, are approaching zero.
From SSA: The projections presented include our best estimates of the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Economic recovery from the 2020 recession has been stronger and faster than assumed in last year's reports, with positive effects on the projected actuarial status of the trust funds in these reports. Source: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
Source:
EdG, TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit citing a self-serving government *estimate* of what the recovery might be.
Ed, kindly eat shit and die.
This is more than 100% a spending problem.
Real revenue per capita has increased in every decade since WW2.
The problem is that spending has increased faster.
Its fine. I am assured that since thus far the debt has been no problem despite people warning about it, it will never become a problem.
brrrrrr baby!
We’ll be using the term Quadrillion soon enough.
Article synopsis: OMG!! BIDEN INCREASES DEBT BY $4.8 TRILLION!!! oh, by the way, we won't mention trump increased it by $7.8 trillion ... nothing to see here ... republican deficits good ... democrat deficits bad
You'd be mistaken. What you failed to notice was that before the COVID pandemic, Trump was doing a better job than Obama with dealing with the national debt.
Yet Biden's has done worse than both of them in his first year and a half of his presidency compared to that of Trump's.
The numbers don't lie, EdG. Lose your dishonesty and repent.
"You’d be mistaken..."
You're too kind; EdG is a TDS-addled lying pile of lefty shit who shows up to troll now and then.
Ed, kindly eat shit and die.
This article suffers from an outdated dogma, a theory that excessive spending or national debt will cause inflation. A theory, if it can be refuted by evidence, an no longer be held as valid.
Here is the evidence that this theory won't hold water: Japan.
Japan has a debt that is 263 % of GDP 2021); inflation 2 years ago during the pandemic was negative (deflation). Four years ago it was at 1.5% Today it is 3%.
We can derive two insights from these facts:
1. The nation with the most debt (relative to GDP) has had for decades some of the lowest inflation, Conclusion: high debt does not produce high inflation,
2. The second lesson is based on Japan's new record high inflation of 3%: Because the debt/GDP ratio has been "high" for 20 years (over 120%) and inflation has been low, and since the ratio was 236% in 2019 (pre-pandemic) with inflation under 1% (.2 to ,9), recent rise to 3% cnnot be explained by the high ration, as in 2019, it was nearly as high and inflation was below 1%.
So we have destroyed the myth high debt results in high inflation and raised the question of what then causes inflation? And the answer is totally ignored in the article, which is: supply constraint.
Supply constraint is a universal problem, now affecting nearly all nations, including Japan...and that is why inflation is at the new high of 3%. Could the same explanation work to describe why the US and all other nations have high inflation? Well, yes
So the reallity is that it is not high debt or ration that causes inflation: Japan disproves that theory over the past 20 years, but what Japan is now experiencing as in the rest of the world, is the tension between demand and supply. For it is this imbalance which causes inflation,
Conclusion: a nation can print virtually unlimited amounts of money IF that spending is used not only to increase demand but if it at the same time produces greater productivity and supply.
For so long as demand is met by a constant or growing supply, there is no inflation: again ,the example of Japan alone proves this but in fact, virtually all nations are experiencing high inflation in a world with supply chain constraints....
So what kind of spending increases productivity (more for less) and supply? Education leads to greater productivity and healthcare leads to less sick days and productive years,
High debt in fact is not the problem but the solution: if the debt is used to fund education, research, healthcare, and infrastructure, the increased demand of government spending (fiat money) will be more than balanced by increased supply.
IN short, the answer to what causes inflation is not debt but the imbalance of supply and demand: if spending increases supply, it can lower prices, as a good investment that produces positive results (such as increased buying power).
So let go of the old dogmas and understand that debt used to increase productivity (and thuys supply) is the key to a healthy economy
And yet inflation happened, and plenty of economists have said Biden's administration played a significant factor, putting your entire post in shambles.
I shall let others exercise their agency in refuting you.
Assholes like that do not deserve facts as a rebuttal; his head is so far up his ass, he can't read any of them.
He is an asshole, but his confusion about inflation and prices is extremely common and is at the root of why countries keep sliding into hyperinflation and debt spirals.
Like Japanese politicians, most US politicians actually think that if prices are stable and the stock market is rising rapidly, they are doing a good job, when, in reality, the nation is careening towards economic ruin.
Stable prices and a rapidly rising stock market can be produced either (1) through rapid economic growth OR (2) through printing money and handing it to Wall St. Of the two, (1) is a good thing, while (2) ends in economic disaster.
ruffsoft 50 mins ago
"This article suffers from an outdated dogma, a theory that excessive spending or national debt will cause inflation. A theory, if it can be refuted by evidence, an no longer be held as valid.
Here is the evidence that this theory won’t hold water: Japan..."
This steaming pile of lefty shit suffers from brain-deadness.
Fuck off and die, slaver.
You’re confusing a rise in the consumer price index (“price inflation”) with monetary inflation. Japan has experienced a lot of monetary inflation, but monetary inflation doesn't necessarily stimulate the demand for consumer goods, neither in the US nor in Japan. Whether consumer prices go up depends on whether the newly minted money finds its way to consumers and whether those consumers choose to spend it on consumer goods. If they don't, you still have monetary inflation and the bad effects it causes, you just don't see it in prices for consumer goods.
In Japan, a lot of money has gone into the stock market, leading to the 1980’s bubble, a crash, and now a new bubble. That's because, unlike the US, the Japanese government and Japanese culture discourages consumer spending, and since the Japanese prefer to spend money on high quality luxury items that are not usually counted as part of something like a CPI.
Monetary inflation leading to stock market bubbles is economically even worse than monetary inflation leading to price inflation. Politically, however, stable consumer prices with rapidly rising stock markets look good, which is why politicians keep printing money and voters keep voting for them. I mean, look at yourself: you just don’t get it.
The article notes that we need both tax hikes and spending cuts. This is likely impossible despite being true. If however, the government taxed at an appropriate level for the service it provides people would understand the cost of those services and would be incentivized to consider eliminating those services.
The Dow is down almost 650 points, because the economy added 263,000 jobs. Normally, a report like that sends the Dow up strongly.
So, what gives. The labor participation rate hasn't budged. It's still 2 open jobs for every jobseeker (unemployed person or employed person looking to change jobs). I haven't looked at numbers, but I think the labor participation rate is still 1 point or 1.5 points lower than in February of 2020.
So, with wages increasing to fill spots that employers can't fill, the Fed must continue to ratchet up interest rates. This makes a soft landing less likely.
But, forget all of the money that the government has printed. People with money are spending, whether on restaurants, clothing, cars, entertainment, or travel, no matter the cost.
I've slso read that many businesses people are of a mindset that people are accepting of inflation. So, they are hiking prices at rates that are greater than inventory, raw materials, labor, etc., because customers are paying.
"Now Americans Are Paying the Price."
It would be much more convenient to pay the price later.