The scale of the debt crisis.

[Greenbeard]

First the annual deficit has to be paid and Trump has reduced that to 1.7 trillion from 2.6 trillion.

That reduction happened under the previous administration.

 

[22lcidw]

DOGE looked at it. There wasn't that much fraud.

We want more government than we are willing to pay for.

You must be learing. The tentacles of corruption, stealing, graft and any other though of corruption is only at its beginning. DOGE peeled the first layer of the onion back and then was terminated. It showed the reality though.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I want to talk about the federal debt because I think most people fundamentally misunderstand the scale of the problem we're facing.

First, let's clarify basic terms that many people confuse. The federal deficit is how much more we spend than we take in each year. The national debt is the total accumulated amount we owe from all previous years combined. For fiscal year 2025, our deficit was approximately $1.8 trillion. Our total national debt is now over $36 trillion. Every year we run a deficit, it adds to that total debt, and we're now paying over $1 trillion annually just in interest on money we've already borrowed.

Here's the reality about military spending. Even the most dramatic cuts wouldn't solve this problem. If we completely withdrew from Europe and Asia, closed all 750+ overseas bases, and dramatically reduced our military presence globally, we might realistically save around $500 billion annually. That sounds enormous, and it is, but it would only reduce our annual deficit by roughly 25-30%. We'd still be running a deficit of $1.2-1.4 trillion every single year.

It gets worse. If you completely eliminated the military, no Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, no defense budget whatsoever, we'd still have an annual deficit of approximately $900 billion. Think about that. The thing politicians argue about most could be entirely zeroed out and we'd still be adding nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt every year.

The structural problem is this. Total federal spending is roughly $6.8 trillion while revenue is only about $5 trillion. Just three categories, Social Security ($1.5T), Medicare/Medicaid ($1.6T), and interest on existing debt ($1T), consume nearly $4 trillion alone. That's more than our entire tax revenue before we spend a single dollar on defense, infrastructure, education, or anything else.

Here's what many people really don't understand about who we owe. The debt isn't primarily held by China or foreign adversaries. Foreign holders own about 23.5% of our debt, with China holding just 2.2% of the total. The vast majority is owned by domestic interests such as the Federal Reserve, American mutual funds and pension funds, banks, insurance companies, state and local governments, and Social Security trust funds. When we pay that $1+ trillion in annual interest, we're mostly transferring money from taxpayers to American asset holders, pension funds, 401ks, IRAs, and financial institutions.

This creates an impossible trap. We can't simply default on this debt. US Treasury bonds are the foundation of global finance, considered the world's safest asset. Every interest rate globally is priced off Treasury rates. A US default would trigger immediate economic apocalypse: pension funds would collapse, retirement accounts would evaporate, the dollar would lose reserve currency status, and the 2008 financial crisis would look mild by comparison. Defaulting to stick it to monied interests would devastate ordinary Americans whose retirement savings are in these "safe" investments.

The intergenerational injustice is profound. We're running up massive debts for current consumption and leaving the bill to future generations. By the time our great-grandchildren inherit this debt in 2125, it will be so woven into the financial system that they can't refuse to pay it without destroying their own economy. They'll be trapped, the debt too large to realistically pay off, but too catastrophic to default on. We're essentially robbing our descendants, and they'll have no choice but to service obligations created by our spending decisions.

This isn't a problem that can be solved by cutting any single area of spending or making any one policy change. It's structural and requires either massive entitlement reform, significant tax increases, or realistically both. These are political third rails that neither party wants to seriously address. The longer we wait, the deeper the hole gets and the more limited our options become.

What are your thoughts on realistic solutions? Or is this problem already beyond the point where democratic politics can address it?

You you had spent $1million per day since Jesus was born, you wouldn't have spent one trillion. Yet the US is $38trillion in debt.

 

[sartre play]

The GOVT itself (GAO) estimates fraud at ($0.5T-$1.5T? or more).

Candyporn is lying. DOGE found plenty (estimate 10%-20%). Congress wont listen, they won't stop the fraud and they will not implement the big cuts required. //

JUST PICK OUT TWO DEMOCRATIC STATES, Best if you never lived in one.
NEVER LOOK At YOUR OWN STATE, OR other states that are more red, Best if you never lived their also.
THAT WAY YOU KEEP IT SIMPLE.

 

[Papageorgio]

I have said for years that the government needs to cut spending and raise taxes on everyone to solve the debt crisis but no political candidate will touch the subject. Each budget today is the party in power adding to the debt.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

I want to talk about the federal debt because I think most people fundamentally misunderstand the scale of the problem we're facing.

First, let's clarify basic terms that many people confuse. The federal deficit is how much more we spend than we take in each year. The national debt is the total accumulated amount we owe from all previous years combined. For fiscal year 2025, our deficit was approximately $1.8 trillion. Our total national debt is now over $36 trillion. Every year we run a deficit, it adds to that total debt, and we're now paying over $1 trillion annually just in interest on money we've already borrowed.

Here's the reality about military spending. Even the most dramatic cuts wouldn't solve this problem. If we completely withdrew from Europe and Asia, closed all 750+ overseas bases, and dramatically reduced our military presence globally, we might realistically save around $500 billion annually. That sounds enormous, and it is, but it would only reduce our annual deficit by roughly 25-30%. We'd still be running a deficit of $1.2-1.4 trillion every single year.

It gets worse. If you completely eliminated the military, no Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, no defense budget whatsoever, we'd still have an annual deficit of approximately $900 billion. Think about that. The thing politicians argue about most could be entirely zeroed out and we'd still be adding nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt every year.

The structural problem is this. Total federal spending is roughly $6.8 trillion while revenue is only about $5 trillion. Just three categories, Social Security ($1.5T), Medicare/Medicaid ($1.6T), and interest on existing debt ($1T), consume nearly $4 trillion alone. That's more than our entire tax revenue before we spend a single dollar on defense, infrastructure, education, or anything else.

Here's what many people really don't understand about who we owe. The debt isn't primarily held by China or foreign adversaries. Foreign holders own about 23.5% of our debt, with China holding just 2.2% of the total. The vast majority is owned by domestic interests such as the Federal Reserve, American mutual funds and pension funds, banks, insurance companies, state and local governments, and Social Security trust funds. When we pay that $1+ trillion in annual interest, we're mostly transferring money from taxpayers to American asset holders, pension funds, 401ks, IRAs, and financial institutions.

This creates an impossible trap. We can't simply default on this debt. US Treasury bonds are the foundation of global finance, considered the world's safest asset. Every interest rate globally is priced off Treasury rates. A US default would trigger immediate economic apocalypse: pension funds would collapse, retirement accounts would evaporate, the dollar would lose reserve currency status, and the 2008 financial crisis would look mild by comparison. Defaulting to stick it to monied interests would devastate ordinary Americans whose retirement savings are in these "safe" investments.

The intergenerational injustice is profound. We're running up massive debts for current consumption and leaving the bill to future generations. By the time our great-grandchildren inherit this debt in 2125, it will be so woven into the financial system that they can't refuse to pay it without destroying their own economy. They'll be trapped, the debt too large to realistically pay off, but too catastrophic to default on. We're essentially robbing our descendants, and they'll have no choice but to service obligations created by our spending decisions.

This isn't a problem that can be solved by cutting any single area of spending or making any one policy change. It's structural and requires either massive entitlement reform, significant tax increases, or realistically both. These are political third rails that neither party wants to seriously address. The longer we wait, the deeper the hole gets and the more limited our options become.

What are your thoughts on realistic solutions? Or is this problem already beyond the point where democratic politics can address it?

The true reality is that we spend significantly more on entitlement programs than we do on the military. Guess which of the two is mentioned in the Constitution ?

The solution is to get rid of every unconstitutional Federally funded entitlement and let the States decide if they want to tax the shit out of their citizens to provide these programs.

 

[gipper]

I have said for years that the government needs to cut spending and raise taxes on everyone to solve the debt crisis but no political candidate will touch the subject. Each budget today is the party in power adding to the debt.

Other than support for Israel and the war machine (essentially one and the same), nothing is more bipartisan than deficit spending.

Who has benefited from this massive deficit spending? It doesn’t appear the bottom 50% has benefitted one iota. The top 10% certainly has benefitted handsomely. Socialism for the rich you might say. Maybe they should pay off the debt.

 

[skews13]

I want to talk about the federal debt because I think most people fundamentally misunderstand the scale of the problem we're facing.

First, let's clarify basic terms that many people confuse. The federal deficit is how much more we spend than we take in each year. The national debt is the total accumulated amount we owe from all previous years combined. For fiscal year 2025, our deficit was approximately $1.8 trillion. Our total national debt is now over $36 trillion. Every year we run a deficit, it adds to that total debt, and we're now paying over $1 trillion annually just in interest on money we've already borrowed.

Here's the reality about military spending. Even the most dramatic cuts wouldn't solve this problem. If we completely withdrew from Europe and Asia, closed all 750+ overseas bases, and dramatically reduced our military presence globally, we might realistically save around $500 billion annually. That sounds enormous, and it is, but it would only reduce our annual deficit by roughly 25-30%. We'd still be running a deficit of $1.2-1.4 trillion every single year.

It gets worse. If you completely eliminated the military, no Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, no defense budget whatsoever, we'd still have an annual deficit of approximately $900 billion. Think about that. The thing politicians argue about most could be entirely zeroed out and we'd still be adding nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt every year.

The structural problem is this. Total federal spending is roughly $6.8 trillion while revenue is only about $5 trillion. Just three categories, Social Security ($1.5T), Medicare/Medicaid ($1.6T), and interest on existing debt ($1T), consume nearly $4 trillion alone. That's more than our entire tax revenue before we spend a single dollar on defense, infrastructure, education, or anything else.

Here's what many people really don't understand about who we owe. The debt isn't primarily held by China or foreign adversaries. Foreign holders own about 23.5% of our debt, with China holding just 2.2% of the total. The vast majority is owned by domestic interests such as the Federal Reserve, American mutual funds and pension funds, banks, insurance companies, state and local governments, and Social Security trust funds. When we pay that $1+ trillion in annual interest, we're mostly transferring money from taxpayers to American asset holders, pension funds, 401ks, IRAs, and financial institutions.

This creates an impossible trap. We can't simply default on this debt. US Treasury bonds are the foundation of global finance, considered the world's safest asset. Every interest rate globally is priced off Treasury rates. A US default would trigger immediate economic apocalypse: pension funds would collapse, retirement accounts would evaporate, the dollar would lose reserve currency status, and the 2008 financial crisis would look mild by comparison. Defaulting to stick it to monied interests would devastate ordinary Americans whose retirement savings are in these "safe" investments.

The intergenerational injustice is profound. We're running up massive debts for current consumption and leaving the bill to future generations. By the time our great-grandchildren inherit this debt in 2125, it will be so woven into the financial system that they can't refuse to pay it without destroying their own economy. They'll be trapped, the debt too large to realistically pay off, but too catastrophic to default on. We're essentially robbing our descendants, and they'll have no choice but to service obligations created by our spending decisions.

This isn't a problem that can be solved by cutting any single area of spending or making any one policy change. It's structural and requires either massive entitlement reform, significant tax increases, or realistically both. These are political third rails that neither party wants to seriously address. The longer we wait, the deeper the hole gets and the more limited our options become.

What are your thoughts on realistic solutions? Or is this problem already beyond the point where democratic politics can address it?

This is the result of 40 years of trickledown economics. There's nothing new or shocking on the subject.

When you give massive tax cuts to billionaires and corporations, while expanding out of control military spending, and then have to borrow money you shouldn't have had to in the first place, and then have to pay that money back with interest. This is the end result.

You do know that giving massive tax cuts to billionaires and corporations is spending right?

Before all of this started in 1980, the debt was less than $1trillion. The more you know.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The lefties who cry about global warming and rising seas killing us all, have no concern about the debt.

 

[gipper]

The lefties who cry about global warming and rising seas killing us all, have no concern about the debt.

The left hasn’t put much emphasis on the debt historically, but the right has. Except now righties don’t seem to care, since Don their beloved leader has exploded the debt.

Do you see the hypocrisy?

 

[Nobody911]

I want to talk about the federal debt because I think most people fundamentally misunderstand the scale of the problem we're facing.

First, let's clarify basic terms that many people confuse. The federal deficit is how much more we spend than we take in each year. The national debt is the total accumulated amount we owe from all previous years combined. For fiscal year 2025, our deficit was approximately $1.8 trillion. Our total national debt is now over $36 trillion. Every year we run a deficit, it adds to that total debt, and we're now paying over $1 trillion annually just in interest on money we've already borrowed.

Here's the reality about military spending. Even the most dramatic cuts wouldn't solve this problem. If we completely withdrew from Europe and Asia, closed all 750+ overseas bases, and dramatically reduced our military presence globally, we might realistically save around $500 billion annually. That sounds enormous, and it is, but it would only reduce our annual deficit by roughly 25-30%. We'd still be running a deficit of $1.2-1.4 trillion every single year.

It gets worse. If you completely eliminated the military, no Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, no defense budget whatsoever, we'd still have an annual deficit of approximately $900 billion. Think about that. The thing politicians argue about most could be entirely zeroed out and we'd still be adding nearly a trillion dollars to the national debt every year.

The structural problem is this. Total federal spending is roughly $6.8 trillion while revenue is only about $5 trillion. Just three categories, Social Security ($1.5T), Medicare/Medicaid ($1.6T), and interest on existing debt ($1T), consume nearly $4 trillion alone. That's more than our entire tax revenue before we spend a single dollar on defense, infrastructure, education, or anything else.

Here's what many people really don't understand about who we owe. The debt isn't primarily held by China or foreign adversaries. Foreign holders own about 23.5% of our debt, with China holding just 2.2% of the total. The vast majority is owned by domestic interests such as the Federal Reserve, American mutual funds and pension funds, banks, insurance companies, state and local governments, and Social Security trust funds. When we pay that $1+ trillion in annual interest, we're mostly transferring money from taxpayers to American asset holders, pension funds, 401ks, IRAs, and financial institutions.

This creates an impossible trap. We can't simply default on this debt. US Treasury bonds are the foundation of global finance, considered the world's safest asset. Every interest rate globally is priced off Treasury rates. A US default would trigger immediate economic apocalypse: pension funds would collapse, retirement accounts would evaporate, the dollar would lose reserve currency status, and the 2008 financial crisis would look mild by comparison. Defaulting to stick it to monied interests would devastate ordinary Americans whose retirement savings are in these "safe" investments.

The intergenerational injustice is profound. We're running up massive debts for current consumption and leaving the bill to future generations. By the time our great-grandchildren inherit this debt in 2125, it will be so woven into the financial system that they can't refuse to pay it without destroying their own economy. They'll be trapped, the debt too large to realistically pay off, but too catastrophic to default on. We're essentially robbing our descendants, and they'll have no choice but to service obligations created by our spending decisions.

This isn't a problem that can be solved by cutting any single area of spending or making any one policy change. It's structural and requires either massive entitlement reform, significant tax increases, or realistically both. These are political third rails that neither party wants to seriously address. The longer we wait, the deeper the hole gets and the more limited our options become.

What are your thoughts on realistic solutions? Or is this problem already beyond the point where democratic politics can address it?

Sustained high deficits and growing debt don’t have to produce a dramatic “collapse” to be devastating — they can steadily reduce public investment, raise taxes or cut services, depress private investment, and increase economic volatility. Over time these forces lower GDP per capita, real wages, job quality, and the resilience of the social safety net — a persistent erosion of living standards felt across many households.

How to avoid erosion of living standards?

• Stabilize debt with a gradual mix of revenue increases and entitlement reforms that protect the vulnerable.
• Control health‑care cost growth through payment reform, drug negotiation, and value‑based care.
• Invest in growth: infrastructure, education, R&D, and policies that boost labor force participation.
• Improve tax enforcement and eliminate wasteful spending (procurement reform, base broadeners).
• Manage debt prudently (longer maturities, transparent targets) and maintain central‑bank credibility.

 

[Nobody911]

The US sovereign credit ratings remain at their post‑2023 levels (S&P AA+, Moody’s Aa1, Fitch AA+/or AA depending on agency) with generally stable or cautious outlooks from major agencies.

Yes — sovereign credit ratings are closely linked to the national debt and related fiscal metrics. Key links:

• Debt burden: Higher absolute debt and rising debt‑to‑GDP weaken a sovereign’s ability to service obligations, which can prompt rating downgrades.
• Debt trajectory: Agencies focus more on the path (is debt falling, stable, or increasing?) because an improving trajectory reduces long‑term risk even if current debt is high.
• Deficit and primary balance: Persistent budget deficits (especially large primary deficits excluding interest) require new borrowing, increasing future debt and pressuring ratings.
• Fiscal policy credibility: Clear, credible plans to stabilize or reduce debt (spending cuts, revenue increases, or growth‑boosting policies) support higher ratings; political gridlock that prevents such plans raises downgrade risk.
• Debt structure and financing: Maturity profile, currency denomination, and reliance on foreign vs. domestic investors affect rollover risk and vulnerability to market shocks.
• Economic growth and revenue base: Stronger GDP growth raises revenues and lowers debt‑to‑GDP, improving rating outlooks.
• Contingent liabilities and off‑balance items: Large unfunded pension obligations, guarantees, or contingent fiscal liabilities can worsen the rating even if headline debt looks manageable.
• Institutional and political factors: Quality of institutions, fiscal rules, and political stability influence how likely a country is to manage debt—weak institutions lower ratings.
• Market access and interest costs: Rising borrowing costs increase interest payments, which enlarge deficits and debt, creating a feedback loop that ratings agencies monitor.

In practice, agencies combine these factors to judge the probability the government will meet obligations without disruptive policy changes; worsening debt dynamics or loss of fiscal credibility are common triggers for downgrades.

sources:

• https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-debt-rating-stable-now-152724824.html
• United States - Credit Rating

 

[Ace Nova]

The national debt - in it of itself isn't the primary issue - not yet, anyway. If the federal budget is balanced - the national debt - over decades - will become less (in terms of % of GDP)/value due to inflation alone.

For example: $20,000 100+ years ago would be worth roughly $1000 now. If a budget had $2000 in annual revenue with a debt of $20,000 - it would be difficult and a major burden to pay it down.

If over the course of 100 years the budget increases with the rate of inflation, the $2000 budget from 100 years ago will become a $40,000 budget with a debt of only $20,000. No longer a major issue and something that can easily be handled.

That said - in order for this to occur - the federal budget needs to be balanced - and policies put in place requiring it to remain balanced with exceptions only for major national emergencies - and even then, policies should outline mandatory repayment of any deficit, funding, timeframe, etc.

For example - if Congress or the Executive branch requests additional funding that would result in a deficit - it would trigger an automatic (temporary) tax increase until the budget is balanced. This would also act as a deterrent - since neither Congress or the Executive Branch would gain any favors by increasing taxes - making the additional funding requests truly "emergency only" - minimizing wasteful spending, etc

How does the budget get balanced without resorting to drastic measures that could have catastrophic results if it does not go as planned?

- Through policies and legislation - promote healthcare systems that run primarily as non-profit organizations - healthcare systems, insurance companies, etc should not be pressured to show increased profits year over year - as demanded by Wall Street investors. If a healthcare system/company is required to show 10%+ increases in profit year over year with the rate of inflation being 2%-3% - healthcare will eventually cost more than any other cost with no end in sight.

A way to ensure these healthcare systems remain funded is by providing them with access to low cost lending - banks, in exchange, could receive tax breaks, etc. Science, research and pharmaceutical companies could be exempt from "the non-profit" model - not affecting advances in medicine, etc. Some of the best healthcare systems in the United States are run by the Catholic Healthcare system - all non-profit - and have been doing so for decades - so it can and does work.

Reduced healthcare costs will have a direct impact on Medicare/Medicade costs -reducing (or stabilizing) them to levels covered by taxes.

- Contrary to popular belief, many of the richest Billionaires within the US have shown to be philanthropists. A radical (nonsensical idea) is to tax them on their overall wealth which would be akin to taking their life's work without them having any say or control over it. Although it may seem just to some - the idea alone goes against the core values of the United States - and the free market system. On the other hand, most of the Billionaires would not be Billionaires without the opportunities they were afforded by the United States and the free market system.

What could be done - is something similar to what many billionaires are doing already - "The Billionaire Pledge" - where Billionaires pledge to give a large portion of their wealth to philanthropic causes during their lifetimes. In the case of the budget - over $1 trillion of the federal budget goes to interest on the debt annually - at an approximate interest rate of 3.2%.

If the majority of Billionaires pledge a portion of their wealth to a fund used primarily for philanthropic causes - nothing to do with the federal government - the money could be invested in the stock market - the same system many of the Billionaires profited from - and then federally insured - in exchange, the year over year capital gains from the fund would go directly towards paying the interest portion of the deficit. Any surplus would be put back into the fund, etc. Only the year over year capital gains would be used (in exchange for the fund to be federally insured) - not affecting the fund's primary philanthropic purpose. The fund could be privately managed - by whoever they choose - eliminating any thoughts of "government waste/corruption" etc.

- Balancing the trade deficit - especially when it regards technology and intellectual property rights born from the United States system of "free trade" and "The American Dream".

- Transparency in politics. All legislation passed should have a clear, short - "reader friendly" synopsis - a one page "cliff notes" version of the bill - who sponsored it - who voted for it - the voting history - earmarks added or subtracted from the bill - with direct links to profiles of the congresspeople - showing every campaign donation, source, etc

- Allow people who's jobs may be replaced by AI or robotics in the years to come to assign themselves an "AI Bond" - the "Bond" would be a type of insurance they would carry - paid for (at least in part) by their employer. If the person's position is directly replaced by AI, the bond would be "activated" - the company and insurance would pay a large portion of the employees wages - including taxes - until the person acquires gainful employment. This is an idea with a lot of moving parts and would likely need to be adjusted/specified at the state level, etc.



These are just some ideas off the top of my head - but the general idea is that if the budget is balanced - and remains that way, the overall debt could essentially take care of itself, over time.