US national debt reaches a record $37T, the Treasury Department reports
apnews.com
apnews.com
Thank you, Mr. T, and to all those before you who let avoidable crises happen, handed out tax cuts to your richest friends, and slapped it all on the national credit card.
The people of this country will be feeling your “generosity” and recklessness for decades to come.
PS: I'd invite everyone to examine how US Debt/GDP grew unbounded.
The biggest culprits seem to be i) financial crisis and ii) covid. I consider both of them avoidable, man-made. When you have reckless leaders who have no interest in protecting the nation from man-made and natural catastrophies this is what you get. And obviously, you have massive tax cuts added on top, which have been completely uncalled for, given our ginormous debt.
As a follow-up, maybe briefly ask yourself: What additional tail risks are actively being ignored today? Whose job is it to minimize those?
Then think about the wholesale dismantling of the US government (under Doge), eliminating the post-crisis financial regulation, actively contributing to climate change...
Louder for those in the back.. CLIMATE CHANGE
Well, mathematicians do, but nobody listens to us.
That the man who did it was a sex pest and should be in prison is unrelated to his success on that particular policy.
https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/dbroussa/553166/241096/origi...
What did Clinton do? Clinton did save us all from “Welfare Queens”, which also seems very relevant here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_...
If I wanted to attack the character of William Jefferson Clinton, I would have plenty of facts to draw from there as well, like sexually assaulting an intern in the Oval Office and lying to us with “it depends on what your definition of is is”[0], which I’d note our non-biased hard-hitting media elites collectively shrugged off. Or I might allude to Jennifer Flowers, or Epstein, or a really long list of other ghoulish Clintonian acts.
[0] One can easily see this as the approximate moment the executive became unaccountable, a trend that’s continued (slippery slopes are real) and which many are now fallatiosly calling factism. It’s not, it’s just unaccountability in the same vein as Clinton’s sexusl assault.
Unaccountable? Old boy balanced the budget, you know, the topic being discussed (not the Epstein file, who is it not releasing those again?). He came, he took account, he won. How much has Trump, the budget fixer, added to the budget again? And what does that number look like compared to past Presidents?
I guarantee both parties know how to balance the budget but one requires a pledge to never raise taxes and the other knows they will lose if they propose it.
We're already seeing insurers flee entire states like California and Florida. The domino effect is simple: no insurance means no mortgage, and no mortgage means the underlying asset is functionally worthless to anyone but a cash buyer. This isn't just a problem for individual homeowners; it's a systemic threat. Trillions of dollars in real estate collateralizing mortgage-backed securities are sitting in these increasingly uninsurable zones. It's the 2008 playbook, but the risk isn't a bad loan—it's the physical asset itself.
During that time he's been actively campaigning for policies that are questionable but highly aligned with this administration: BBB, crypto, interest rate cuts.
So qualified or not I can't see your prediction coming true.
Money men on the inside of this administration are only going to make money, why make waves even if it makes normal Americans poorer. That's been happening since Reagan.
Since January there have been 4 Acting Commissioners of the IRS, then Billy Long was confirmed, but was kicked out after ~2 months, and now Scott Bessent (also Treasury Secretary) is Acting head:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissioner_of_Internal_Reven...
Either he's lying about that or he has guaranteed a position as Trump's number one favourite after Lighthizer.
And what would Putin get?
> Other countries, in essence, are providing us with a sovereign wealth fund,” he told commentator Larry Kudlow, himself a top economic adviser in the first Trump term. “We have these agreements in place where the Japanese, the Koreans and to some extent the Europeans will invest in companies and industries that we direct them, largely at the president’s discretion.”
Freedom-minded technology orgs like Wikimedia Foundation, Packet Clearing House, Internet Archive, ISOC, the EFF and the Free Software Foundation will not have anywhere to go to escape the net.
> the Europeans will invest in companies and industries that we direct them, largely at the president’s discretion.
The only significant general-purpose sovereign wealth funds in the EU are a French one worth 30bn and an Irish one worth $16bn. And the EU, which is the entity which makes trade deals, has no control over those. The EU has no significant money of its own (~200bn budget/year) and has no ability to control what member states spend their money on, and member states in general are uninterested in sovereign wealth funds, nevermind ones which invest specifically in American assets.
As far as I can see, what the 'deal' actually says is that private companies will invest an extra $600bn in the US by 2028, with the EU admitting it has no actual control over this, because of course it doesn't. But this is, y'know, not out of line with the level of FDI that you'd expect anyway, so really that bit of the trade deal boils down to _nothing_, an acknowledgement of what will probably happen in the normal course of events, a completely meaningless promise given for PR reasons.
In general, most of the non-tariff component of these ‘deals’ is of that form; stuff which the government obviously can’t control but which the private sector might reasonably be expected to do anyway.
1. The issue will become moot in a few years.
2. Trump is motivated to misinterpret promises--especially if they involve big numbers--since he's an idiot, and eager for "wins" to brag about.
3. After Trump's emotionally invested into his New Clothes, none of his advisors will want to tell him they aren't there.
That's like striking a deal with a mr.Beast and consider the public and private holdings of YouTube part of your own net worth.
I mean I would love EU to be in such a position to be able to do such deals even if I don't support such a deal but that's not the case. Maybe Poland can send money I don't know but in Europe overall there's no other consolidated pro-USA power.
Maybe Bessent talks to provoke a reaction or induce something in their electoral base?
Is he using his qualifications, though, or, for real, does he have any? I thought he'd be the sane and reasonable voice in this otherwise incompetent administration. But, he's just another yes-man.
Have you listened to his Senate hearing? He couldn't give any concrete response. Well, he wrote a wallstreet journal article to kiss T's as* and openly admire Tariffs and tax cuts to get his job. While earlier tax cuts and the big ugly bill collectively added $8T to the national debt.
Of course, this doesn't show projections for what the future debt will become after the Republican's "BBB" package from a few months ago.
[0] Yes, I know GDP is a flawed measure, but as long as its flaws are consistent over the years it is useful for scaling.
Interesting to see the issues that get the ire of the current administration like food stamps and education and foreign aid are minuscule line items on that visualization.
It was held together by decorum. There is none left.
It seems to be a pattern, where a disturbingly-large minority of people remember nothing but the year-number of an election (e.g. "2008") and never account for how voting was at the end of that year and the voting-result only takes effect the next (odd-numbered) year.
Oh, there's also a general "I want it to be true so I remember it that way" aspect, but I think that's contributory rather than the main cause.
1942-1945: Big increase to pay for fighting/winning a World War
1946-2007: More or less fiscally responsible
2008-present: War-like level of debt increase to counteract a down business cycle?
I recommend the surplus/deficit by GDP graph, which is easier than manually eyeballing slopes: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S
Democrats had a near solid lock on Congress from World War II until the early 1980s (only 2 two year sessions where they didn't control both chambers) and Congress hadn't abdicated its power of the purse.
Republicans spend a lot of time branding themselves as the "party of fiscal responsibility", but ask yourself in what situations a group needs heavy branding by way of incessant self messaging. By every major objective measure, Republican control of government has been worse for the economy.
And to be clear, none of this reply is meant as a defense of the current Democratic party which is currently (at the national level) leaderless and in shambles and is far too captured by its donor class of special interests to protect the interests of the American working and middle classes and who will be unable to regain real power until they address that.
Many years ago I recall seeing a chart that annotated-out the party had the Presidency or majorities in either house of Congress along the "time" axis, but I'm not having any luck finding one. Sort of like this [0] except including a line for deficit/surplus by GDP. [1]
There are a lot of charts out there where the Presidency is shown, but IMO that plays in to a false narrative about who really has power over budgeting and how-much.
[0] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/02/03/single-pa...
I don't think they can be considered consistent over the years. 20% of our GDP is healthcare and that's only going to grow as the population ages. I don't know what percent of the GDP is financial services but that'll probably also grow until we get something akin to 2008 again.
Including healthcare and financial services in GDP figures feels out of place and unproductive but I'm not an economist so I don't know what I'm talking about.
Then you have the services sector which makes you reconsider what the point of calculating a country's GDP is to begin with?
You reminded me of something: a nurse in San Diego sleeping through her entire shift is more productive than half a dozen nurses in many third world countries working hard, because the way economists measure productivity is the $/hour output. People doing nothing in America are much more productive than people doing a lot in most of the world because that is how we define productivity, and how the term is discussed in articles and papers.
Doesn't matter, the same articles and papers will bring up that US enjoys higher productivity due to better technologies, etc, but since all of that makes it very hard to be really measured, it's always a mixture of some heterogeneous ideas together.
If you want a clearer comparison take Japan and tell me their average driver, nurse, teacher, policeman, factory worker, carpenter, painter, car mechanic, shop assistant, barista, bank clerk, etc does "less" or "less efficiently" than his american counter part.
Because there is a huge difference in measured productivity between them.
There might be, at times, some added productivity in US due to having more capital at disposal to adopt some technology, there might be some other benefits from being more risk prone in US? Sure. But that amounts for smallish differences and sure not for the immense gap measured by economic measures, which, at the end of the day, as explained with the initial sleeping nurse example is still $/hour.
It's actually worse than that, because in lots of EU/western countries health is provided by states which gets booked against GDP at cost. In the US, because it's more private it gets booked higher because of the margins. It's actually responsible for a bunch of the US's "productivity" growth since the financial crisis.
France includes illegal drug traffic and illegal prostitution in its gdp too
1. "Gross federal debt" includes the money which Congress borrowed from (future) Social Security recipients in order to pay for (current) tax-cuts and middle-east invasions and whatnot.
2. "Held by the public" excludes that portion, focusing on money borrowed from individuals/companies/other-countries that voluntarily lent their money to the US government.
So we should make our decisions based on the first one, unless someone is plotting to screw millions of American taxpayers out of the money they already paid as insurance-premiums. :p
[0] https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-gross-debt-versus-debt-held-p...
1.) 2008 financial crisis, 67% -> 82%
2.) covid, 105% -> 125%
so basically, a one time war injury upon America's finance and health.
https://www.economist.com/content-assets/images/20250705_FBC...
I hope so ... I dunno.
Marketing, data scientists and strategist have effectively manipulated public opinion into further polarization.
Could find many such examples today featuring red hats.
In the coming decades the USA will end up just like every other failed state.
Women will have their reproductive rights taken away so they can be men’s property and fulfil their traditional roles and responsibilities.
Intellectual institutions will be defunded or outright abolished, because they oppose the regime’s messaging.
The minority in charge will scapegoat some already powerless minority to distract the general populace. In the end, their own propaganda will force their hand and they’ll have to enact some sort of dire measure, a “final solution” like concentration camps.
Despite the dire state of the economy, military spending will paradoxically increase and the armed forces will be increasingly used against citizens.
…oh.
Too late, I guess.
I am not an economist or finance guy, but I have noticed a lot of debt hysteria from people who don't seem to understand basic accounting. That is, one party's asset is another party's liability. You cannot have buying without selling, and so on. Your mortgage is a liability for you, but an asset for your bank. Your checking account is an asset for you, but a liability for your bank.
I'm not saying the debt can grow infinitely, but clearly if some of that debt is held as assets by the non-government (most of the world including you and me) then paying off that debt means a wealth transfer from the non-government back to the government.
This isn't necessarily in my interests. If the government has to claw those dollars back from somewhere, I'd rather them start with the richest people. But that doesn't happen for obvious reasons.
AI is propping up the US economy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44802916 - August 2025 (439 comments)
The people who don't understand accounting actually seem to be pretty consistent on that point, because one of their other major complaints is inequality, ie, the people doing the lending have too many assets.
> I have noticed a lot of debt hysteria from people who don't seem to understand basic accounting. That is, one party's asset is another party's liability.
This is correct, but... let me ask you, would it concern you, if my asset is your liability? I mean, would it concern you if you had to pay for my house? How about everything it is I do? How would this not be a concern? If it is not, then why don't you publicly disclose your credit card?
So weve lost a bunch of shit and gained... let me check here... oh, -2 trillion dollars. Okay.
But at least some poor sick people will lose Medicaid. Glad to see we're burning our money and then spending more on running the AC full blast so we don't boil.
As long as the US maintains the western worlds largest military, I don't see the government being pressured to do much of anything remotely close to dealing with the problem in a long term (and likely painful) way.
If that power ever gets displaced, it'll tank the US quickly. As soon as the US loses its privileged status (something Trump is rapidly deteriorating) this becomes a serious burden that will require some serious policy decisions, of which most will be unpopular. It'll likely be cuts before tax increases, because even when facing the worst economic situation, neither party wants to pass meaningful tax increases.
I think we have at least a few more decades, but if we aren't the western worlds de facto military there's significantly less reason to let this house of cards go on.
We'd be better off dealing with it while we are still in a relatively privileged position, but no economic class wants the tax increases it will take just to get the debt into a manageable state.
As for no party wanting to deal with it, that is partly true. I think some Democrats actually want to deal with it, because they're much more comfortable proposing tax increases, but they don't have sway in the current leadership of the party.
In the mean time the impossible, unsustainable, terrifying national debt will be used to justify benefit cuts (like the upcoming privatization/cut of social security when the trust fund runs out in 7 years)
If the wealthy donors and corporate interests were smart they'd take a haircut on their wealth to try and stave off this issue but it seems we're mostly in a loot-and-raze craze. Realistically I would sooner expect an American-style French Revolution before we see the rich grow a sense of self-preservation.
A massive return to conservatism that manages to create a capitalist first theocracy loosely following American Calvinist principles (you have money because you are gods chosen, you are poor because you deserve it, for the poor here is this underclass to blame your problems on so that you dont aim your murder at the rich).
They've already been trying to sell some of the Calvanist dogma by trying to soften the blow of tariffs which by all indicators has been a massive failure of a messaging avenue, which is why they've moved towards trying to just ignore it instead.
Many of them will get really mad at whoever the person to blame points the finger at, regardless how plausible. But what good does getting really, really mad do, against a government with a functioning panopticon and an effective monopoly on force?
Until now, there has never been a time in human history when an oppressive government had the technical means to effectively surveil and control the population en masse in an automated fashion. It doesn't help that they have a monopoly on advanced weapons, lethal drones, and armed goons. As George Orwell put it: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever".
If we genuinely can't sell treasury bonds, even at elevated payouts, we're probably at a point where we will either have to default in the near future. Or maybe intentionally inflating our currency until the debt is serviceable; no idea which is preferable, but would be curious to hear which and why.
Incidentally, Chinese government stopped buying US Treasury instruments 2015.
All these to say that arguments that depend on freedom of choice ( like this is a free market, or for every seller is a buyer, or US treasury holders want this and that) do not apply to this situation. Which makes this situation so hard to predict.
> Under current policy, the United States has about 20 years for corrective action after which no amount of future tax increases or spending cuts could avoid the government defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., debt monetization producing significant inflation). Unlike technical defaults where payments are merely delayed, this default would be much larger and would reverberate across the U.S. and world economies.
My prediction is that the deficit will continue to increase, and so the default will come by then or sooner.
[0]: https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2023/10/6/when-...
Don't think of the US (or any monetarily sovereign Government) as having the constraints of a household or business... It's fundamentally different and we make major errors (like the crazy idea the US would default) when we think of it in the wrong way...
> defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e., debt monetization producing significant inflation).
The real constraint isn’t solvency, it’s inflation and currency value. If deficits are monetized well beyond the economy’s capacity, inflation will rise and long term yields will climb, unless the central bank caps them, which then shifts the pressure to prices and the currency.
In the shorter term I predict that next summer Trump will replace Jerome Powell with someone else who will bring short term interest rates to close to 0%. This will allow the US admin to decrease the interest expense on its debt, and use these savings to further increase the deficit. The problem thus magnified will then be dumped onto the next US admin-which will be mocked by MAGA as incompetent (something along the lines of “we gave these guys a perfect economy and they wrecked it”)
When Donald put tariff in dishwashers even the ones made in US rose it's prices.
Once that ends, well... =(
Brazil and India just said fuck off with the tariffs to Trump, and China and Russia are in a cold war with us. Some president absolutely needs to rehabilitate this soon, at least with a few of the BRICS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinv...
The reality is if you actual listen to Trump, which none of his supporters ever do, but if you did, you'd know his platform is "make everything more shit for everyone, and we'll save some money... maybe"
Well, he did thing 1. But the saving money part? How much are we saving now, like, -2 Trillion?
And, in exchange, more poor people on Medicaid will lose coverage, everything is more expensive, and we've gutted just about every social service we can.
Its like paying 200 dollars for a burger and then instead of giving you a burger they actually reach down your throat and rip out your small intestine.
This is just a bad deal. Or, in Trump language, "I told them - this is the worst deal ever. That's what I told them. Yeah. And everyone agreed with me. Yeah yeah. The biggest, most garbage deal ever"