cevans_40 said:

---

Dobro Turtlebane said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Dobro Turtlebane said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

Dobro Turtlebane said:

---

cevans_40 said:

---

pfo said:

---

Central Committee said:

---

Normally we would grow our way out of the debt. But that first requires balancing the budget. Even monetizing the debt (a disaster) only works if you first balance the budget.

Our kids and grandkids a screwed.

---

You are right but unless you are on your deathbed, we are getting screwed too plus our kids and grandkids. The day of financial reckoning is near. Covid spending and gov policies killing growth accelerated the doomsday machine

---

Ok, walk me through this like I'm a 4th-grader. What happens if we just file bankruptcy and start over. Who collects on our debt? The world doesn't stop selling to us or buying our goods? Money is just numbers on a computer screen now. Just transfer the numbers to whoever we owe and call it good. I don't get it.

---

The govt debt isn't only held by foreign sovereign wealth funds. A lot of it is held by institutional investors in the US - your 401k, state pension funds, investment grade collateral swaps, etc. And the value of the dollar (and by extension the global petrodollar, and by further extension the global basket of currencies market that trades through the dollar) is built on the credit of the US govt.

If the govt was to crawfish on its debt - or "renegotiate" as one of our most diehard alt-TDS posters suggest they should - there would be a dollar-for-dollar hole in every derivative fund. Your $100 401k would suddenly be worth $50. And the world trades through the dollar. Even weak-dollar hawks know (on some level) that being the petro- and basket-currency means the US can always trade. If you walked into an iHop with an Iraqi dinar, would you expect them to take it in exchange for a pancake? Of course not, because it's worth very little. Now extrapolate that to global trade.

It would be catastrophic. Saying we'd be post-apocalyptic like in Alas Babylon is an exaggeration, but it's directionally accurate

---

Its just seems like a shell game to me. When the dollar is literally backed by nothing, its worth nothing. Its like baseball cards. Its only worth what someone is willing to pay. So why not just say we paid it?

---

Because everything you want to buy is priced on the proximal assumption that the govt will eventually be good for the value of the underlying asset (the dollar is the proxy medium). If that breaks, you'd need wheelbarrows of dollars to build up enough little shreds of derivative promises to buy anything.

---

Could the government not stop borrowing and just continue to pay what they owe transferring the numbers over? I guess what I'm saying is, just keep the con going?

---

They certainly could stop borrowing, but economic liberals like Obama and Trump are much more popular than economic conservatives like those rowing the boat in your local CFO's office.

If we stopped borrowing, we'd have to end entitlement spending almost completely. I doubt that will ever happen, as the populist wing of the "conservative" party has fully embraced Modern Monetary Theory.

Your kids are screwed. But hey, we got some nice free sugar from the CARES Act, and Medicare has ensured your car insurance covers $10 oil changes

---

But why? Who's the accountant for the government that says every dollar must be accounted for? Just cook the books and keep trickling the money out and stop borrowing. Pay the debt down slowly and keep spending near the same. 50 years from now the con is over and we are back to square. Nothing ever changed and everyone received their electronic money.

---

If the govt printed and spent money without a matching credit entry, inflation would be Zimbabwe level. Right now, the dollar is worth something because we believe it is backed by the govt's credit, which includes a belief that the govt will keep its books. If the govt handed out dollars that weren't accounted, markets would instantly reject them as worth less than the paper they're printed on. Bonds (debt) make the markets believe the govt is at least making an effort to back the value of the dollar. The global collapse would be even more catastrophic.

I'm only slightly exaggerating when I say we'd be trading in pelts and furs within a year

ETA: this is essentially a milder version of what Interwar Germany did to repay its obligations from the Treaty of Versailles. It's the backbone of MMT - the belief that as long as the govt accepts its currency for taxes that the currency is valuable everywhere. It's an absurdly stupid theory

cevans_40 said:

---

pfo said:

---

Central Committee said:

---

Normally we would grow our way out of the debt. But that first requires balancing the budget. Even monetizing the debt (a disaster) only works if you first balance the budget.

Our kids and grandkids a screwed.

---

You are right but unless you are on your deathbed, we are getting screwed too plus our kids and grandkids. The day of financial reckoning is near. Covid spending and gov policies killing growth accelerated the doomsday machine

---

Ok, walk me through this like I'm a 4th-grader. What happens if we just file bankruptcy and start over. Who collects on our debt? The world doesn't stop selling to us or buying our goods? Money is just numbers on a computer screen now. Just transfer the numbers to whoever we owe and call it good. I don't get it.

---

That would be a catastrophe. A massive financial crisis. Every citizen who holds treasuries would lose that asset and the interest (income) they collect on it. Banks hold the treasuries as collateral and that's all gone.

The price of debt for the government would go through the roof. If I owed you $100k and decided not to pay, would you ever loan me any money again? And if you did make me another loan, the interest rate you would demand would be outrageously high since I defaulted on you the first time.

We HAVE to borrow to pay our yearly operating expenses right now even if we had no interest expense: SS, Medicare, defense, etc... Where would we get that money?! I saw that you shafted Joe, no way I'm loaning you a dime by buying US treasuries. You can't be trusted.

The dollar would no longer be the reserve currency anymore. Everything we buy would instantly become way more expensive!

Money is not just a number on a computer screen. When you look at your bank account online at that number, that is your actual worth and wealth. If it goes to 0, you are now homeless and starving, especially if you live off that money, like millions do.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

What's the alternative?

The Democrats that embrace political violence, Islam, woke culture, and mass immigration.

You can be annoyed at one and still never vote for the other.

---

Stop. Spending. Our. Money.

MagnumLoad said:

---

Growth is good. Combine that with reduction in deficit spending.

---

Trump and the GOP passed the biggest deficit spending bill in US history on 7-4-2025.

Economists who are longtime deficit and national debt fiscal hawks loudly warned against it. The BBB guarantees annual deficits will rise to $2T and above.

As for "growth is good", it is, but there is a new elephant in the room now that didn't exist 40 years ago.

It is an economic growth factor and a quality of living factor that neither political party nor Wall Street talks about publicly very often -- yet. They do talk about it privately though.

The US population was 235M in 1984.
It reached 340M in 2024.

Should we cap it?

If we don't cap our population size, quality of life in the USA will continue to decline. Resource scarcity problems will get 5x worse.

But if we do cap it, the structure of our economy and economic growth will change.

A substantial % of the stock market's growth and our economy's growth the past 40 years has been due to the population increase domestically and globally:

340M people buy more Nikes and Coca Cola and Big Macs and autos and cellphones than 235M do.

We could continue on the same population growth path we're on. But do we really want to live in a USA with a 500M population in 2060?

AGHouston11 said:

---

Trumps going to leave this term as the 50 trillion national debt president.

---

True.

Quote:

---

There really no good way to spin that as maga.

---

Sure there is. They'll just blame the Dems. They still blame Clinton and Obama for the massive deficit and debt messes their GOP predecessors' massive spending increases combined with massive tax cuts created. There are even people in this thread doing that.

The Scots have a centuries-old saying.

Sooner or later, you have to pay the piper.

That day is coming.

AGHouston11 said:

---

Trumps going to leave this term as the 50 trillion national debt president. There really no good way to spin that as maga.

---

Since when did the economy become a single party issue? Aren't all Americans under this umbrella? It will begin to change when the left actually engages in a practical solution, which we both know won't happen. Enjoy the ride to the bottom b

Our saving grace is foreign currency hedged against the dollar because their currency is worse. They stop doing that and the cookie crumbles.

DeschutesAg said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Trumps going to leave this term as the 50 trillion national debt president.

---

True.

Quote:

---

There really no good way to spin that as maga.

---

They'll just blame the Dems. They still blame Clinton and Obama for the massive deficit and debt messes their GOP predecessors' massive spending increases combined with massive tax cuts created. There are even people in this thread doing that.

---

Biden and the Dems had full control for two years and did not roll back the tax cuts.

From 2021 to early 2023 Democrats controlled the White House and both chambers. They could have used reconciliation to raise the permanent 21 percent corporate rate and repeal the temporary individual cuts.

THEY DID NOT!


Stop gaslighting.

I don't want to hear a damn thing from lefties on the matter. They DGAS about deficit spending or the debt and never have. Clinton didn't either. He got lucky because we had the dotcom bubble which blew up right after W entered office!

Its all science fiction space 3000 bs no way to spend it errr spin it!!

AGHouston11 said:

---

Trumps going to leave this term as the 50 trillion national debt president. There really no good way to spin that as maga.

---

There is no good way to spin it, but if it makes you feel any better we were going to get there regardless of who is in office. Biden and the Dems were/are on same trajectory as Trump. Always have been. They put $8.5T towards the total in four years.

In what world does anyone think either party was going to cut spending? They can't at this point.

Does anyone know what we've gotten with this debt?

Your blatant lying and gaslighting about this is beyond absurd at this point.

Let us know when you change your user name yet again, Lot Y.

Inflation is a hidden tax we all pay but billionaires benefit from the most. That is why he loves this idea. It's a regressive tax shoved down our throats while his real estate and crypto benefits.

GMaster0 said:

---

Inflation is a hidden tax we all pay but billionaires benefit from the most. That is why he loves this idea. It's a regressive tax shoved down our throats while his real estate and crypto benefits.

---

The inflation we already and are going to continue see are not going to benefit real estate or crypto.
Inflation in general is "good" for asset prices, but at this point, there is no more room to go. Those prices only increase when lots of people can afford to purchase them. Middle America is already tapped out. It will recover eventually, but we've got Hell to pay here for a while economically, the "billionares" aren't going to benefit from what's coming either.

YouBet said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Trumps going to leave this term as the 50 trillion national debt president. There really no good way to spin that as maga.

---

There is no good way to spin it, but if it makes you feel any better we were going to get there regardless of who is in office. Biden and the Dems were/are on same trajectory as Trump. Always have been. They put $8.5T towards the total in four years.

In what world does anyone think either party was going to cut spending? They can't at this point.

---

If Trump were king, I believe he would cut spending. On the item he has total control over: executive level employees, he has made significant cuts; we are back to 2008 levels there. He also stopped the USAID spending. The Dems will crank both of those back up when they get control.

But you have a congress full of Rs which also have to agree to spending cuts, and some of them don't want to cut a dime. Especially those in purple districts. You vote to cut, you lose your seat to the Dem who will never cut a single penny. So you remove the cuts because those Rs help you get other stuff passed.

Elon came to that realization - after pitching a fit and threatening to start a 3rd party - admitting that we have to grow our way out of it. There will never be any net spending cuts!

GMaster0 said:

---

Inflation is a hidden tax we all pay but billionaires benefit from the most. That is why he loves this idea. It's a regressive tax shoved down our throats while his real estate and crypto benefits.

---

In the interest of our national debt, this is the best way to tax the half of the country that doesn't pay taxes. Sucks, but it's the only way when dealing with corrupt children and an electorate that can't practically address the problem. Voting won't fix it, but collapse might.

GMaster0 said:

---

Inflation is a hidden tax we all pay but billionaires benefit from the most. That is why he loves this idea. It's a regressive tax shoved down our throats while his real estate and crypto benefits.

---

That why I like tariffs.

40% of US households pay 0 Federal income tax. With tariffs, they have some skin in the game like they should!

Logos Stick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Trumps going to leave this term as the 50 trillion national debt president. There really no good way to spin that as maga.

---

There is no good way to spin it, but if it makes you feel any better we were going to get there regardless of who is in office. Biden and the Dems were/are on same trajectory as Trump. Always have been. They put $8.5T towards the total in four years.

In what world does anyone think either party was going to cut spending? They can't at this point.

---

If Trump were king, I believe he would cut spending. On the item he has total control over: executive level employees, he has made significant cuts; we are back to 2008 levels there. He also stopped the USAID spending. The Dems will crank both of those back up when they get control.

But you have a congress full of Rs which also have to agree to spending cuts, and some of them don't want to cut a dime. Especially those in purple districts. You vote to cut, you lose your seat to the Dem who will never cut a single penny. So you remove the cuts because those Rs help you get other stuff passed.

Elon came to that realization - after pitching a fit and threatening to start a 3rd party - admitting that we have to grow our way out of it. There will never be any net spending cuts!

---

Tend to agree he would, but we will never know. Both parties have it as policy that they will never touch Mandatory Spending and our annual deficit is now equal to all of our Discretionary Spending. So, there is no way to fix this. Collapse is the only way out at this point.

The long-term solution on the board right now that has been proposed by the Problems Solver Caucus is to cut deficit spending to 3% of GDP under the assumption that growth exceeds that over time. I have little faith that gets any traction or adherence.

He's a sales person. And unless Congress decides they want to get serious about the debt. The debt is a non-issue at this point.

Logos Stick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Trumps going to leave this term as the 50 trillion national debt president. There really no good way to spin that as maga.

---

There is no good way to spin it, but if it makes you feel any better we were going to get there regardless of who is in office. Biden and the Dems were/are on same trajectory as Trump. Always have been. They put $8.5T towards the total in four years.

In what world does anyone think either party was going to cut spending? They can't at this point.

---

If Trump were king, I believe he would cut spending. On the item he has total control over: executive level employees, he has made significant cuts; we are back to 2008 levels there. He also stopped the USAID spending. The Dems will crank both of those back up when they get control.

But you have a congress full of Rs which also have to agree to spending cuts, and some of them don't want to cut a dime. Especially those in purple districts. You vote to cut, you lose your seat to the Dem who will never cut a single penny. So you remove the cuts because those Rs help you get other stuff passed.

Elon came to that realization - after pitching a fit and threatening to start a 3rd party - admitting that we have to grow our way out of it. There will never be any net spending cuts!

---

Sure he would.

pic.twitter.com/rCJepMqfck

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 3, 2026

jt2hunt said:

---

He's a sales person. And unless Congress decides they want to get serious about the debt. The debt is a non-issue at this point.

---

It's not a non-issue when the bond market is screaming at you that it's an issue.

AozorAg said:

---

Democrats will cost all of us way, WAY more money, so I'll happily pay whatever it costs to have Trump in office.

---

The mind set one must have.

Logos Stick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

T

---

---

If Trump were king, I believe he would cut spending.

---

SMH. How many of you????

BigFred said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

Democrats will cost all of us way, WAY more money, so I'll happily pay whatever it costs to have Trump in office.

---

The mind set one must have.

---

No, the only mindset I need to have is that it's better to vote for Trump than a communist even though he will still spend a lot of money. Anybody with two brain cells knows that, which I guess disqualifies you. I think it's hilarious that communist sycophants like you try to gaslight everyone by pretending your party wouldn't have spend as much or more, in far more destructive ways, because they were already doing it under Biden.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Trumps going to leave this term as the 50 trillion national debt president. There really no good way to spin that as maga.

---

There is no good way to spin it, but if it makes you feel any better we were going to get there regardless of who is in office. Biden and the Dems were/are on same trajectory as Trump. Always have been. They put $8.5T towards the total in four years.

In what world does anyone think either party was going to cut spending? They can't at this point.

---

If Trump were king, I believe he would cut spending. On the item he has total control over: executive level employees, he has made significant cuts; we are back to 2008 levels there. He also stopped the USAID spending. The Dems will crank both of those back up when they get control.

But you have a congress full of Rs which also have to agree to spending cuts, and some of them don't want to cut a dime. Especially those in purple districts. You vote to cut, you lose your seat to the Dem who will never cut a single penny. So you remove the cuts because those Rs help you get other stuff passed.

Elon came to that realization - after pitching a fit and threatening to start a 3rd party - admitting that we have to grow our way out of it. There will never be any net spending cuts!

---

Sure he would.

pic.twitter.com/rCJepMqfck

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) October 3, 2026

---

Could you explain how this increased spending. I may be wrong but it seems this is just redirecting spending.

YouBet said:

---

jt2hunt said:

---

He's a sales person. And unless Congress decides they want to get serious about the debt. The debt is a non-issue at this point.

---

It's not a non-issue when the bond market is screaming at you that it's an issue.

---

Yeah, anybody saying our national debt is a non-issue has their head buried in the sand.

The interest we pay on the debt is now larger than our defense budget and Medicare, second only to Social Security. And when you account for the fact that SS is partially funded by SS taxes, interest on the debt is the largest spend item on a net basis.

More importantly, it's going the wrong way as a percentage of GDP. As that increases, the bond market will insist on even higher risk premiums in the form of higher rates, which spins the debt spiral flywheel even faster.

This movie doesn't end well. It's a train wreck developing in slow motion that everyone can see but most choose to ignore.

The Fed doesn't control the bond market. The only thing they can do is print more money out of thin air, which just throws gasoline on the debt fire.

amercer said:

---

It's wild that some people still pretend that Trump has a plan any understanding of the issues, or even cares. At this point all he wants is people to worship golden statues of him.

And yet a certain percentage of dead-enders will watch as Trump burns it all down and continue to insist that he was the better choice.

The craziest part is that his policies have been worst for his own supporters. I can assure you that the coastal elites are doing just fine

---

There is no debate that Trump was the better choice over Kamala ****ing Harris. If you actually think he wasn't, you're a communist, not any sort of reasonable or objective person.

Yep. The Hand Wave Thesis that something is not a problem until the afflicted decides it is once it's too late to recover is about the most illogical take on here.

HTownAg98 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

YouBet said:

---

AGHouston11 said:

---

Trumps going to leave this term as the 50 trillion national debt president. There really no good way to spin that as maga.

---

There is no good way to spin it, but if it makes you feel any better we were going to get there regardless of who is in office. Biden and the Dems were/are on same trajectory as Trump. Always have been. They put $8.5T towards the total in four years.

In what world does anyone think either party was going to cut spending? They can't at this point.

---

If Trump were king, I believe he would cut spending. On the item he has total control over: executive level employees, he has made significant cuts; we are back to 2008 levels there. He also stopped the USAID spending. The Dems will crank both of those back up when they get control.

But you have a congress full of Rs which also have to agree to spending cuts, and some of them don't want to cut a dime. Especially those in purple districts. You vote to cut, you lose your seat to the Dem who will never cut a single penny. So you remove the cuts because those Rs help you get other stuff passed.

Elon came to that realization - after pitching a fit and threatening to start a 3rd party - admitting that we have to grow our way out of it. There will never be any net spending cuts!

---

Sure he would.

---

"Trump increased spending on X, thus he would not cut overall spending" is a fallacy.

If I choose to spend more on food but reduce spending on entertainment such that I've reduced my overall monthly spend, I've reduced spending.

If Trump were king, we would see net spending cuts YoY. You probably wouldn't like where the cuts came from - welfare, SSI, bureaucracy - but there would be cuts. Current spending on those items is about $1.3 trillion per year. The bureaucracy alone is $400 billion.

amercer said:

---

It's wild that some people still pretend that Trump has a plan any understanding of the issues, or even cares. At this point all he wants is people to worship golden statues of him.

And yet a certain percentage of dead-enders will watch as Trump burns it all down and continue to insist that he was the better choice.

The craziest part is that his policies have been worst for his own supporters. I can assure you that the coastal elites are doing just fine

---

All else being equal on spending because it is, he was a better choice solely because he shut down the border.

Spending is party agnostic and has been since the early 90s when Newt and Co actually tried to do something about it. That was effectively the last time aside from DOGE's very limited scope. I almost ignore that issue at this point because they are not going to address it even though it makes me insane that they won't.

That then leaves you with everything else that can be controlled...like immigration and the border (good Trump), cutting regulations (good Trump). Just two things off top of my head.

With Kamala we would have continued the same spending trajectory, kept the borders open and immigration from fourth world flowing and continued to add GND regulations to everything just like Biden was doing.

AozorAg said:

---

BigFred said:

---

AozorAg said:

---

Democrats will cost all of us way, WAY more money, so I'll happily pay whatever it costs to have Trump in office.

---

The mind set one must have.

---

No, the only mindset I need to have is that it's better to vote for Trump than a communist even though he will still spend a lot of money. Anybody with two brain cells knows that, which I guess disqualifies you. I think it's hilarious that communist sycophants like you try to gaslight everyone by pretending your party wouldn't have spend as much or more, in far more destructive ways, because they were already doing it under Biden.

---

communist, Marxist blah, blah, blah, what else is in your elementary school Spiderman metal lunch kit you got for me?

Where in that article did he specifically say that inflation is what will pay off the debt? He said growth.

While the reality probably is inflation this is a gross mischaracterization of what was actually said, and is not unlike what many other politicians have also said.