Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

National Debt

The National Debt Is Crossing an Ominous Line

The U.S. has successfully navigated past debt challenges, notably in the 1990s. Policymakers can fix this if they find the will to do so.

Veronique de Rugy | 7.4.2024 12:01 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
The U.S. Capitol is seen surrounded by money | Photo 180552136 © Steveheap | Dreamstime.com
(Photo 180552136 © Steveheap | Dreamstime.com)

The United States is full steam ahead into uncharted fiscal waters, with rapidly growing federal debt promising a choppy economic future. Candidates Joe Biden and Donald Trump have added trillions to the national debt during their recent presidential administrations, leaving America at a critical juncture that demands urgent, bipartisan action.

If you read this column, you know the numbers are stark: U.S. government debt is projected to reach a staggering 122 percent of gross domestic product by 2034, far surpassing levels seen even during World War II. Not only is that a sharp rise from the current 99 percent, but it's based on rosy assumptions about interest rates, inflation, and economic growth. The date to watch is 2038, when this ratio is poised to surpass the previous record from the pandemic year of 2020. The end of the pandemic, unfortunately, hasn't quelled the pandemonium of spending.

So far, fortunately, the U.S. hasn't paid much price for its leaders' irresponsibility. This has prompted economists to come up with all sorts of dreamy theories about why debt doesn't matter and why deficit hawks like me are mere scaremongers. But the cooing of the deficit doves has quieted a little bit recently as America experienced its largest bout of inflation in 50 years and interest rates—which we were assured would never again rise drastically—kept rising.

Unfortunately, a slightly better understanding of the dangers of fiscal irresponsibility doesn't translate into the political courage to change course and act responsibly. So let me make the case, once again, that fiscal stability should be at the top of everyone's priority list.

History does, in fact, offer sobering lessons on the consequences of unchecked government debt. Noted historian Niall Ferguson remarked in a recent Bloomberg column that his studies have led him to conclude that all great powers that spend more on debt service than on defense soon lose their great power. Whether it's the British Empire or France's Ancien Regime, excessive borrowing and spending lead to economic weakness, loss of global influence, and eventual downfall.

The U.S. is already crossing this ominous line. This year alone, interest payments on the national debt will reach $892 billion, which is larger than defense base funding. Annual interest payments will reach $1.71 trillion by 2034, widening the gap into an abyss.

I hope legislators won't think that to fix it, all they need to do is jack up defense spending. The real issue is interest payments consuming a large share of the budget. That makes austerity the answer.

For one thing, high interest payments are likely responsible for some of the Federal Reserve's difficulty in bringing inflation back to its target of a mild 2 percent. The more the Treasury borrows from the Fed, the stronger the inflation pressures. Interest payments that are paid for with debt mean further slowing economic activity. As the Peterson Foundation nicely summarizes, a higher debt burden affects everyone: "If high levels of debt crowd out private investments in capital goods, workers would have less to use in their jobs, which would translate to lower productivity and, therefore, lower wages."

Yet the American political landscape is eerily calm in the face of heavy fiscal weather. Politicians don't seem worried that slower economic growth or a debt crisis will get in the way of financing their priorities, whether tax cuts, climate initiatives, or poverty programs. They should worry. Instead, both sides refuse to tackle the root causes of the debt crisis, a perfect storm of higher interest payments and the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare. They avoid substantive discussion and action.

That brings us to what's so odd today: This is a solvable problem. The U.S. has successfully navigated past debt challenges, notably in the 1990s, and the potential political rewards are enormous. So is the risk of being blamed for a crisis triggered by a credit rating downgrade or loss of confidence among international lenders, which looms large and can happen with surprising speed. Moreover, the specter of major debt holders like China dumping U.S. Treasuries adds another layer of geopolitical vulnerability.

As we stand at this crossroads, will America heed the warnings of history and take decisive action to address its debt crisis? Hanging in the balance is the future of the nation's economic strength and global leadership. If we citizens recognize the gravity of the situation and insist upon action, policymakers will have little choice but to work toward a sustainable fiscal future. The alternative—following the path of fallen empires—is a fate that a great nation like America must avoid at all costs.

COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Rapper B.G. Ordered To Turn Over New Song Lyrics to the Feds

Veronique de Rugy is a contributing editor at Reason. She is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

National DebtDebtGovernment SpendingGovernmentFederal governmentJoe BidenDonald TrumpBipartisanshipGDPWorld War 2InflationInterest ratesEconomyEconomic GrowthEconomicsPandemicCoronavirusPoliticsDeficitsBudget DeficitBudgetMilitaryDefenseDefense SpendingNational DefenseFederal ReserveTreasuryInvestmentJobsProductivityWagesTaxesClimate ChangePovertySocial SecurityMedicareMedicare reformEntitlementsChinaPolicyFiscal policy
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (82)

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.

  1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   12 months ago

    Clue me in, please: I don't understand what this means in practical terms:

    the specter of major debt holders like China dumping U.S. Treasuries adds another layer of geopolitical vulnerability.

    I don't know enough of how all this debt we have works to really understand it. My uneducated guesses are ...

    "Dumping" can't mean literally throwing their T-bills in the trash. I can only think it means (a) selling them at fire sale prices before they become worthless, or (b) refusing to buy any more.

    (a) would probably send some shock waves around financial markets and might actually wake up US politicians. It might convince other potential buyers to not buy. Any loss of potential buyers leaves the remaining buyers demanding better interest rates.

    (b) is the same as (a) without the same initial shock. It would still shock financial markets, just not as rudely.

    Am I at all close here?

    And yeah, snark is fun and all, but I really don't know the subtler details of all this. I only know for sure politicians are never in a hurry to cut spending. And for all the good he did during his first term, Trump was remarkably cowardly when to came to vetoing bills, especially spending bills. It would have been nice to at least force Congress to go on record as big spenders.

    1. Old Engineer   12 months ago

      If the Chinese are willing to take a bath on the securities and sell them for 50 cents on the dollar, the effective interest rate doubles. Instead of 5% the new rate is 10%. When the US tries to sell new securities to fund the deficit, they have to offer 10%, which means that the interest on the national debt will eventually double as the debt comes due to be refinanced.

      At that point spending must be cut which would require Kamikaze politicians willing to lose the next election in order to pass the necessary cuts in spending. This would be political paradise for demagogues who'll say anything to get elected, basically Trump types and Biden types and worse still, AOC types.

      1. Ersatz   12 months ago

        One thing about a parliamentary democracy … you could…
        declare some kind of war-time coalition govt. Declare a real emergency. Include both sides for as long as it takes to get the debt under control and then have an election. Prez from one side VP from the other. rotate presidency every 6 months. Both sides get ‘stained’ by the pain they cause in treating the illness.

        [i know – wouldnt work… couldnt work… its just that thats the only thing I see short of financial collapse that could deal with the issue.]

        The Kamikaze route only lasts till the next govt gets in to spend any savings that were made. So their sacrifice would most definitely be in vain.

      2. Ersatz   12 months ago

        We all know which side would be called upon to be the Kamikaze...
        the (D) party doesnt even acknowledge the debt being a problem as far as I am aware.

        1. CE   12 months ago

          If they do acknowledge the debt they blame the Trump tax cuts, even though federal revenues continued to increase afterward.

    2. Rossami   12 months ago

      You're exactly right that your (a) or (b) are the mechanisms by which China would "dump" US treasuries. Unless there is an immediate threat of default, I think your (b) is the more likely avenue they would take. But given how quickly those securities turn over, I think you underestimate how much it would affect the treasuries market. Even a small reduction in the number of purchasers will cause the yield (the interest rate the US government has to offer to get buyers) to spike up.

      Worse, though, would be the follow-on effects. We get a truly mind-boggling economic advantage from being the world's default reserve currency. When our currency loses that status, the consequences will be staggering.

  2. IceTrey   12 months ago

    The debt isn't the problem coercive government is the problem.

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   12 months ago

      Sure. Coercive, monopoly, immortal. But there's a lot less chance of fixing that than cutting spending. You go ahead and wish for a voluntary government, I'll wish for a less spendy one.

  3. SQRLSY One   12 months ago

    Donald Trump has The Final Solution... A repudiation of, or default on, the national debt! BankTrumpcy has worked for Him; Why not for us?

    https://www.thebulwark.com/p/why-trump-wants-u-s-to-default-on-debt

    Why Trump Wants U.S. to Default on Debt

    Blathers out of both sides of His Mouth actually...

    https://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/donald-trump-national-debt-strategy/index.html

    Trump: U.S. will never default ‘because you print the money’

  4. SQRLSY One   12 months ago

    The real root causes here have to do with self-righteousness and pussy-grabbing! We are NOT in any huge emergency that justifies all of this spending!!!

    Libs want to spend tons of money to punish all of those who use wrong pronouns! Pussy-grab those rubes, dammit!!!

    Sore-in-the-cunt cuntsorevaturds want to spend oodles and boodles of $Big $Bucks to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH those who kill Sacred Fartilized Egg Smells! Make those libs cry, dammit!!!

    And then we wonder why we spend soooooo much! Look in the mirrors, assholes!!!

    1. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   12 months ago

      FOAD spastic asshole.

      1. SQRLSY One   12 months ago

        Show us how shit is done, vile Servant and Serpent of the Evil One!

        (Or are ye a hypocrite? Do ass you say, and not ass you do?)

  5. TJJ2000   12 months ago

    REPEAT ... The consequences of [Na]tional So[zi]al[ism].
    It WON'T work this time either!

  6. sarcasmic   12 months ago

    Veronique de Rugy lost all credibility when she criticized Trump's economic and immigration policies. That means she's wrong about this too. That's because everything is to be judged by who, not what.

    1. Don't look at me!   12 months ago

      Poor sarc. Only talks about people now.

  7. Gaear Grimsrud   12 months ago

    De Rugy believes that this can all be fixed in the nick of time. I'm sceptical. The debt will be resolved when the empire collapses and while we're watching a slow motion suicide the end will come suddenly.

    1. Old Engineer   12 months ago

      The Founders pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor when signing a document that amounted to their death warrants if they failed. Modern politicians are willing to pledge YOUR life, YOUR fortunes and YOUR sacred honor to whatever goals they have in mind.

      What are you willing to give up? Your car? Your home? Your 401k? Are you willing to risk prison? Will you risk mob violence against you and your family?

      These are not far from what you, if you're young enough, might actually face.

      Are these wild exaggerations? I sure hope so, but I'm also sure that the people of Carthage never thought that the Romans would utterly destroy not just their city but the culture that created it.

      1. Vernon Depner   12 months ago

        Well, at least we no longer have a culture to destroy.

    2. CE   12 months ago

      The nick of time would have been 16 years ago. It’s already too late.

      Maverick McCain might have won the election if he came out strongly against TARP spending. Instead he flew back to DC to vote for it.

      We had our chance, with Ron Paul.....

  8. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   12 months ago

    Donnie says 'Why not just file Chapter 11? It works for me".

    1. Uncle Jay   12 months ago

      Biden says, "Invest in Burisma. It works for me."

    2. Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment   12 months ago

      turd, the ass-clown of the commentariat, lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, 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.

    3. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

      And Joey says "Argle-bargle cocoa-puffs peepee time WARRRR!"

      What's your point?

  9. Vernon Depner   12 months ago

    will America heed the warnings of history and take decisive action to address its debt crisis?

    No. Next silly question?

  10. Uncle Jay   12 months ago

    I'm very interested on which candidate, if either one, will address the debt and their ideas on how to pay it off.
    Stop spending immediately comes to mind, but it will take more than that.
    Does anyone here have any ideas on how pay this debt besides selling off all the land west of the Mississippi River?

    1. CE   12 months ago

      20% inflation for another 10 years and the debt won't seem so bad.... as long as they quit adding to it.

    2. Rossami   12 months ago

      You're looking at the wrong candidates. Addressing the debt is Congress's job, not the president's.

      And yes, we need to cut spending immediately. If we could manage that, the economy would rebound, tax revenues would increase and we could pay down some of the debt.

      All that said, we could also sell off much of the land still held by the government outside national forests and monuments. Remember that most of that land is not preserved - it is ranched, harvested and mined just like privately held land. What is your objection to letting the market (rather than federal bureaucrats) decide how that land should be put to use?

  11. Michael Ejercito   12 months ago

    The will must come from the American electorate.

    1. mtrueman   12 months ago

      "The will must come from the American electorate."

      I'm not sure. As long as there are lenders to lend, Americans seem more than willing to borrow. The ball is in the lenders' court, it would seem. When they decide America is no longer a safe bet, the lending will stop and the problem will solve itself, one way or another.

    2. middlefinger   12 months ago

      The American electorate, ALL, must be net federal taxpayers, or they’ll keep voting for the collapse. Replace the progressive tax code with a low flat tax on income and capital gains. Zero corporate tax. The flat tax is required from visa holder residences and refugees that show no income.

      It’s a start

      1. mtrueman   12 months ago

        "It’s a start"

        You'll know it's started when nation parks, interstate highways, deserted islands, abandoned military bases and embassies are auctioned off to the highest bidder.

        1. middlefinger   12 months ago

          As someone who drives across the country every few years, private investment in interstates via tolls is absolutely a good idea! Pennsylvanias union run govt turnpikes are incredibly collapsing shitholes

          1. mtrueman   12 months ago

            "private investment in interstates via tolls is absolutely a good idea!"

            It's the only idea I haven't seen discussed here. A flat tax isn't going to do the trick. It'll come to selling off public assets as Greece and Russia have done in the past couple of decades. The national parks are particularly attractive as they are low maintenance, unlike the crumbling interstate system. Think of all those bears, each endowed with its own magical gall bladder whose powers the Chinese find so irresistible.

        2. TJJ2000   12 months ago

          Is the discussion about State held debt?

          I find it complete BS laughable that every-time cutting spending comes to the table some leftard spout some BS about State highways then proceeds with National Defense which is only 1/6 or less and completely IGNORES the treasonous UN-Constitutional 'welfare' and socialism going on that is really the only cause of the nation going bankrupt.

          1. mtrueman   12 months ago

            Cutting spending wouldn't solve the problem. It will likely exacerbate it leading to yet more debt.

            And the nation going bankrupt, losing its empire and 'loss of global interest' may be a blessing in disguise, affording the opportunity for a fresh start. And with the resulting chaos and disruptions, Americans may be ready for a fresh start and much needed changes. Accept there is a crisis inevitably on the horizon and prepare accordingly, with compassion, without fear, and a stalwart heart.

            ” If the military no longer needs a particular base, it should be sold off.”

            If there’s a debt that needs to be paid off, there may be no choice. Without the debt, it should be turned over to its owners, the public.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

              Cutting spending is absolutely the first step, you idiot. What essential programs are we getting now that we did not get in 2019? How can you justify jumping from $4 trillion to $7 trillion in 5 years? And, for the intentionally slow, at $4 trillion this year, with the same revenue, we would actually have a small surplus, and at least not add to the debt.

              1. mtrueman   12 months ago

                "Cutting spending is absolutely the first step, you idiot."

                First step towards what? Saving the empire, making sure that America's global influence on the world continues on undiminished? Fuck off, war monger. America's on a one way trip to Palookaville, and that's a good thing. My advice, get out while the getting's good.

                1. TJJ2000   12 months ago

                  "My advice, get out while the getting’s good."
                  The honesty of the leftards 'conquer and consume' mentality is admirable.

                  1. mtrueman   12 months ago

                    Keep whinging. Did you know there are black people sitting on the boards of director of your favorite companies? Women too.

                    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

                      Just trying to prove that Democrats are the party of race-baiting, eh?

                    2. TJJ2000   12 months ago

                      Earth-based human skeptic pegged you on that one.

                      What in the world would make you think color and/or sex was ever a factor in this conversation? You’re the one bringing such factors into the conversation – why it’s almost like you’re racist and sexist like all leftards are only covered-up by their own self-projection onto others.

                    3. mtrueman   12 months ago

                      "What in the world would make you think color and/or sex was ever a factor in this conversation? "

                      In these troubled times, they are a factor in every conversation. At least on this board. If you prefer to discuss happier things like puppies and flowers, there are probably better venues than this one.

                      "why it’s almost like you’re racist and sexist"

                      There's no almost about it. I'm a very bad person on the internet. In real life I'm slightly less racist and sexist. But I make up for it by being smarter.

                    4. TJJ2000   11 months ago

                      I'd say you're not very smart since history has a solid record on how ?pleasant? smart racist, sexist and 'conquer and consume' mentality led nations tends to end up.

                      But like I said before. Your honesty about how 'bad' you really are is admirable.

                    5. Jefferson Paul   11 months ago

                      In these troubled times, they are a factor in every conversation. At least on this board.

                      It's rich that you bring up race and sex, then take a shot at other commenters ("At least on this board.) for the fact that race and sex is brought up on these boards.

                      Further proof that leftist are guilty of what they accuse others of, especially libertarians and the right.

                    6. TJJ2000   11 months ago

                      So you blinding jam sex and race into the subject and now pretend its everyone else's problem? Yes, yes; You just might have a leftard-indoctrinated brain going on under the hood.

            2. TJJ2000   12 months ago

              Cutting 'armed-theft' spending causes more debt?
              Only for those who truly believe in their heart that 'Guns' make sh*t.
              Only to wonder later why their utopia is bankrupt, violent and full of criminals.

        3. Rossami   12 months ago

          National parks constitutes a tiny fraction of the total lands west of the Mississippi held by the federal government. They are also among the least economically viable lands - that's why the government could afford to set them aside in the first place. The only way the national parks will get sold off is if some politician forces the issue to make a point. Otherwise, they will be the last to go.

          I have no idea why you think that selling off the interstate highways or abandoned military bases are a bad idea. As middlefinger already pointed out, many states have privatized their roads to significant improvement both of the roads and the cost of using them. And an abandoned anything is pretty pointless to keep around. If the military no longer needs a particular base, it should be sold off.

          1. mtrueman   12 months ago

            “I have no idea why you think that selling off the interstate highways or abandoned military bases are a bad idea. ”

            I didn’t say it was a bad idea. It’s inevitable given the quality of solutions on offer here so far – a flat tax, whites only corporate boards, to name a couple.

            “They are also among the least economically viable lands – that’s why the government could afford to set them aside in the first place.”

            Eco tourism, non eco tourism, luxury condos, hunting safaris, surfing safaris. The list is endless.

            ” If the military no longer needs a particular base, it should be sold off.”

            If there’s a debt that needs to be paid off, there may be no choice. Without the debt, it should be turned over to its owners, the public.

            1. Jefferson Paul   11 months ago

              whites only corporate boards

              Here you go again. The vast majority of the commentariat here is against DEI hiring as it's affirmative action to reward skin color (among other trivial or immutable characteristics) at the expense of merit. Instead of portraying commenters honestly, you strawman them to arguing for whites-only corporate boards.

          2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

            You really think national parks are not economically viable? What do you think a private entity would pay for Yosemite Valley, to in turn develop into private estate(s) and/or run as a private resort?

            And many other parks would also make effective developments.

  12. middlefinger   12 months ago

    On the bright side, Schwab at the WEF (and author of Covid 19 the great reset) is being metooed and destroyed as we speak. Chatter is DAVOs climate jihadis will not survive? There’s also a new, non DEI, ESG mandated board of directors stock exchange going up in Texas.

    Boys and girls, we might go to shareholder free market capitalism instead of global stakeholder socialism.

    As for treasury’s, now we get the truth on Ukraine support, as EU and British treasury buyers/holders are at risk of invasion.

    1. mtrueman   12 months ago

      "Boys and girls, we might go to shareholder free market capitalism instead of global stakeholder socialism."

      I thought the problem was debt. It seems you don't want to address the debt but use it as an excuse to smuggle in all manner of reactionary talking points - purging company boards of minorities, instituting flat tax etc.

      "EU and British treasury buyers/holders are at risk of invasion."

      ?

      1. middlefinger   12 months ago

        “Purging company boards of minorities”

        And the global south Marxist leftist is back to
        “PriVAte EnTErpRiSE Is RAciST”

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

          Come on, man. Any kind of economic system that requires value to exchange for desired goods and services (and uses numbers and math) is racist.

          1. mtrueman   12 months ago

            " Any kind of economic system"

            The economic system you're so keen on defending has plunged the nation into trillions of dollars of debt, and you still think it's not enough. Your purported solutions amount to nothing more than whinging about black people.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

              Fuck off, asshole. Free market commerce has nothing to do with aggressive taxation and deficit spending. And does not care about skin color, just the free exchange of mutually agreed value.

              1. mtrueman   12 months ago

                Suck my rosy red dick you child molesting sister fucker.

                1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

                  Did you spray spittle when you typed that? Does the librarian make you clean that up before you go back to the shelter?

                  1. mtrueman   12 months ago

                    No to both. And fuck you for your impertinent questions.

        2. mtrueman   12 months ago

          How will white only company boards address the debt? They won't, and you know it.

          1. middlefinger   12 months ago

            Worry not comrade, Klaus Schwab will get to keep his bust of Vladimir Lenin on his way to ruin.

            1. mtrueman   12 months ago

              I promise you, whinging about black people in positions of responsibility will not solve the nation's problems or yours. For god's sake man, find another hobby horse to ride.

              1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

                All this fixation on black people makes us thing you have a particular rape fantasy.

                1. mtrueman   12 months ago

                  You may thing what you like. And don't feel you have to tell me about it.

              2. EISTAU Gree-Vance   12 months ago

                Yeah. White people are terrible.

                1. mtrueman   12 months ago

                  Haven't you heard? We're replacing them.

  13. AT   12 months ago

    750 words, and no mention of entitlements, welfare, or illegal immigration.

    Put it on Veronique. Put on the nose. You are Clown World.

  14. CE   12 months ago

    Ten trillion here, ten trillion there, pretty soon you're talking real money.

  15. Jim Logajan   12 months ago

    Historical numbers from the CBO:
    https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-02/51134-2024-02-Historical-Budget-Data.xlsx
    In 2023 total Federal revenue was $4,439.3 billion.
    Total debt was $26,239.5 billion.
    Assuming one wanted to pay that off over a 30 year period by a fixed amount per year then one would need to come up with about $875 billion a year. So about a 20% change to the current budget using some mix of revenue increases and expense decreases. Using a proper loan amortization computation wherein the amount paying down the principal increases each year would reduce the amount needed per year, but I'm too lazy to do that since I'm unsure what interest rate to use.

  16. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

    Debt comes from spending. Here's the fucking problem. The US federal budget went from $4 trillion in 2019 to $7 trillion today. How the fuck is that permissible? And who the fuck do some people, who demand more spending, think they are?

    1. mtrueman   12 months ago

      "Debt comes from spending. "

      Debt also comes from interest. That's why the lenders lend. It's how they make a return. Stop spending yet still the interest continues to pile up. Simply stopping spending won't erase the debt. It will result in millions of angry people with empty stomachs.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

        Hey, retard, how many millions were starving in the US in 2019, when the federal budget was $4 trillion?

        1. middlefinger   12 months ago

          Comrade Sanders, the braintrust of the U.S. left, has quipped that “In rich countries the rich get all the food and the poor starve to death”

        2. mtrueman   12 months ago

          " how many millions were starving in the US in 2019"

          Still not enough. Give it time. A starving peasant is more dangerous than the retards you are used to dealing with.

          1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

            Was life easier when you were in school and could ride the short bus?

    2. middlefinger   12 months ago

      Who do they think they are? A little guess is around 60 percent of the population that do not pay federal taxes.

      1. AT   12 months ago

        But receive the spending.

    3. middlefinger   12 months ago

      I wasn’t joking about the global communism thing. Yes, the WEF leader Schwab has a bust of Vlad Lennin in his office.

      Organization is being destroyed now. The Davos communist crisis!

      Another far right conspiracy theory - True

  17. Strider   12 months ago

    There is a serious mistake in the article. The national debt is already at 122% of G.D.P. At the turn of the century, a mere 24 years ago, the national debt was 58% of G.D.P. We have more than doubled the debt to G.D.P. ratio in 24 years. This can only be referred to as "Santa Claus Economics."

  18. Sarah Palin's Buttplug - Jan 6 = 9/11 (same motive)   12 months ago

    Labour landslide in Britain, Peanuts.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   12 months ago

      You should move their, and hang out with your alter ego.

  19. Corey   12 months ago

    Interest payments swamping government revenue is a good thing. Government debt is largely held by the individual and institutional investors. The interest payments on that debt flow to those entities and the money gets spent or invested in voluntary transactions. Every dollar of tax money that is disgorged as interest payments is a dollar that won't be spent by the Federal government on building bombs, foreign aid, corporate welfare, blowing shit up, vote buying, hiring more employees, hassling citizens, expanding regulation, green-tech horseshit, stupid presidential aeroplanes, or any other useless or harmful waste of money. I'd like to see every dollar of tax revenue flow back to investors and the Federal government become a empty shell.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

More Than 1,800 'No Kings' Protests Aim for Nonviolent Pushback Against Trump Policies

Nancy Rommelmann | 6.14.2025 10:10 AM

Have Presidents Grown Too Powerful To Be Removed From Office?

Gene Healy | 6.14.2025 8:00 AM

Some Federal Agencies Are Actually Getting More Efficient

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 6.14.2025 7:00 AM

Trad Wives and Tallow Fries: How the Wellness Wars Flipped Health and Food Politics Upside Down

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | From the July 2025 issue

The Trump Administration Just Created Hundreds of Thousands of Illegal Immigrants

Autumn Billings | 6.13.2025 4:15 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!