America is now paying more for interest on debt than defense

America is now having to pay more for the obligatory interest payments on the national debt than is being allocated for national defense.

This is a huge milestone.

I blame the stupidity of the public, for letting it come to this point.
Anyone with a brain who bothered to think about things could have seen this eventually coming.

America is now paying more in gross interest on its record $33 trillion debt than on national defense -- here's who holds the IOUs, by Serah Louis Fri, MoneyWise, November 17, 2023 (appeared in yahoo finance)

America's gross national debt hit an eye-watering $33 trillion for the first time in September -- and in fact is currently closer to the $34 trillion mark. In response, the U.S. is now spending more in gross interest on Treasury debt securities than it does on national defense, according to the Treasury's latest monthly statement.​

 

and if the right has their way, we may pay more in interest if we do not pay off our bills

 

most of our debt was from the war in the middle east, that is when the debt started to grow

 

Sort of, but not really.
More money was spent during Bush (Jr) than during (Bill) Clinton. More money was spent during Obama than during Bush. More money was spent during Trump's time in office than during Obama. And at the current time it looks like the Biden Administration is on track to spend more money than during Trump.
(see an update in this thread, The growth of the debt under Biden compared to Trump, all the way down at post #19 )

I think what you actually mean is "the Left's way". Which side is it that is threatening not to pay the bills if they are not allowed to keep spending more money than the country takes in in taxes, continuing to make the debt bigger?

 

And liberals think we can afford socialist crap

 

I've had conversations with some of them. A lot of them are so wacky they think there is a way that the country doesn't have to pay the interest on the debt, so they think it's "nothing to worry about".

Trying to explain to them what's wrong with their idea usually just goes around in circles and is a fruitless endeavor. They seem unable to put together all the pieces of the puzzle to see what would happen. (Like, "We'll solve this problem with this solution. Then we'll solve the new problems caused by that solution with another solution. And another solution for those additional problems." But the problem is it ends up coming around full circle)

Others think somehow "the rich" will end up footing the bill, so why not spend as much as possible now?
The problem with that is that they want to spend the money before they have collected the taxes to pay for it. So we can't even really say what would happen if tax rates were raised, whether it's really viable, or whether it will even politically happen. So it's kind of a dangerous to be carrying out a policy that presupposes a solution that we have not even been able to put in place yet. But that's how progressives seem to roll, with a lot of other issues too, not just this.
(Like trying to convert everything to run on electric power before the super expensive infrastructure to generate all that electric power with expensive renewable sources is even in place, and when people can see how much that electric power will cost at that point)

 

Some very intelligent people have set this up.........

and I believe that America is set up for an economic boom that will boggle our minds.......

Eleven years from today we will look back at January 1, 2024 to January 1, 2034 in a state of awe!!!!!!!!!


http://www.politicalforum.com/index...from-the-ottawa-swamp.551407/#post-1070261992

On the negative side......
those Neo-Malthusians who worry that a booming economy can be dangerous for the environment....... are not exactly the most profoundly stupid people on this third rock!!!!!!

 

This is the result of the Republican enthusiasm for tax cuts, especially for the rich. Beginning with Ronald Reagan Republicans lost their support for balanced budgets.

 

yep, republicans trickle-down economics was a failure

 

Not all of us. I still support a Balanced Budget Amendment but politicians are opposed of course.

 

I am in favor of substantially raising taxes on rich people and corporations.

 

Who on the left has been campaigning to reduce spending?

...or are you just saying the right is responsible for opposing increased taxes?

 

Which ones? The ones that have so much money they can afford to lobby congress to build exemptions into the tax code for them? Doesnt seem like a solution with much possibility of success... the rest of us will pay ofc, but that just increases the disparity.

 

closing down government and not paying our debt like republicans want to do raises interest on our debt, not good

 

Whats the alternative?

 

well unless we want to pay more interest, the alternative is to raise the debt ceiling, pay our bills

go back to tax rates under Reagan for the Rich, the Bush tax cuts are what set us down this path

also tax corps that outsource jobs more

 

The top earners already pay 0 because they fund the think tanks and firms that write the tax code for congress to approve. They just exempt themselves. 30% of 0 is 0. 50% of 0 is 0. 99% of 0 is 0. Raising tax rates will cause everyone but the top earners to pay more. Which is, iiuc, the opposite of what everyone wants. Everyone except the top earners, of course.

 

Congress members have been hinting that they need a raise....lol...

 

From the end of the Second World War to President Carter's last year in office the top tax rate never got below 70% and was often much higher. The rich can be taxed heavily. I want them to be. So do most Americans:

https://www.google.com/search?q=poll+++taxes+++rich&sca_esv=598588983&ei=5EqlZc60JvShptQPjdmBgAQ&ved=0ahUKEwjOtpzQ1t-DAxX0kIkEHY1sAEAQ4dUDCBE&uact=5&oq=poll+++taxes+++rich&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiE3BvbGwgKyB0YXhlcyArIHJpY2hIni1QAFjwKXAAeAGQAQCYAXagAbkJqgEDOS40uAEDyAEA-AEBwgIMEC4YFhgeGMcBGNEDwgIGEAAYFhgewgIIEAAYFhgeGArCAhsQLhgWGB4YxwEY0QMYlwUY3AQY3gQY4ATYAQHCAgYQABgeGA3CAggQABgWGB4YD-IDBBgAIEG6BgYIARABGBQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp

 

Higher taxes on rich people and corporations is the alternative most Americans, including me, want. The rich have plenty of money. All we need to do is to direct the government to take it from them.

 

right, we need to raise the rates on the top, only the top, back to where they were under Regan

 

We need to restore the high taxes for rich people that existed before the Reagan administration.

 

In 2000, federal revenue was 2.03 Trillion. It is going to be 5 Trillion in 2024. It is expected to be 6.4 Trillion in 2028. Federal spending in 2024 is going to be 6.8 Trillion.

What this tells us is that we can balance the federal budget if we have the will to do so. If we kept spending at current levels, revenue would catch up in 2028. If we allowed for a 2% increase in spending per year to partially offset inflation, it would take longer to balance the budget, but we would get there. When the budget is balanced, and we are no longer borrowing money to balance the budget, those debts will eventually get paid off, and the interest cost will drop off.

 

deleted

 

@kazenatsu

Well, frankly, the public is pretty stupid about the federal budget. But the politicians aren't stupid. And the Republicans and Democrats in Congress seem to collude with each other with a wink and a nod.

The Democrats in Congress love spending. (Quietly, so do the Republicans.)
The Republicans in Congress hate tax increases. (Quietly, so do the Democrats.)

So, all of the phony posturing and rhetoric aside, the bottom line is that when the spending bills are approved, each side gives the other what it wants, and here we are.