3 ms·

Are you aware that debt is a cumulative metric, and GDP is an annual metric? If you want to compare apples-to-apples, our budget deficit (an annual metric, whic

Are you aware that debt is a cumulative metric, and GDP is an annual metric? If you want to compare apples-to-apples, our budget deficit (an annual metric, which measures the delta in debt) was $1.4 trillion in 2022, which is 5.5% of GDP. It's not impossible to balance a budget with 130% debt to GDP.

29_29 3y ago
If we did it we would be the first country in history to do so [1] 1. https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/sa_presentations/470/57470/original.pdf https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/sa_presentations/470...
- peteradio 3y ago
  We are a country of firsts! USA USA!
- greatwave1 3y ago
  Do you have any source to this claim? The letter that you linked doesn't cite any sources, and doesn't come from a reputable fund (based on a quick SEC search, Hirschmann Capital seems to only managing ~$20m AUM, meaning it's likely a one-man operation)
youreincorrect 3y ago
Not impossible, but it might as well be. Politically, I see it as virtually impossible for 'both sides' to compromise on higher taxes and lower spending. I wish we could do that, but it seems hopeless.
- BitwiseFool 3y ago
  Beyond the "both sides" problem, no State's representation (House and Senate) has any incentive to tangibly reduce spending. Federal money will always be seen as something to maximize for your constituents because it is primarily funded by the rest of the country. Even if you managed to elect some severely stingy representatives, they can only really manage to reduce spending to their own districts. That void would be filled by greedier and less fiscally concerned representatives from other states. Politicians that unilaterally cut spending to their own constituency run the risk of losing the next election to a candidate who has no qualms with bringing in the pork.

3 ms·

Are you aware that debt is a cumulative metric, and GDP is an annual metric? If you want to compare apples-to-apples, our budget deficit (an annual metric, whic

by greatwave1 3y ago

29_29 3y ago
If we did it we would be the first country in history to do so [1] 1. https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/sa_presentations/470/57470/original.pdf https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/sa_presentations/470...
- peteradio 3y ago
  We are a country of firsts! USA USA!
- greatwave1 3y ago
  Do you have any source to this claim? The letter that you linked doesn't cite any sources, and doesn't come from a reputable fund (based on a quick SEC search, Hirschmann Capital seems to only managing ~$20m AUM, meaning it's likely a one-man operation)
youreincorrect 3y ago
Not impossible, but it might as well be. Politically, I see it as virtually impossible for 'both sides' to compromise on higher taxes and lower spending. I wish we could do that, but it seems hopeless.
- BitwiseFool 3y ago
  Beyond the "both sides" problem, no State's representation (House and Senate) has any incentive to tangibly reduce spending. Federal money will always be seen as something to maximize for your constituents because it is primarily funded by the rest of the country. Even if you managed to elect some severely stingy representatives, they can only really manage to reduce spending to their own districts. That void would be filled by greedier and less fiscally concerned representatives from other states. Politicians that unilaterally cut spending to their own constituency run the risk of losing the next election to a candidate who has no qualms with bringing in the pork.