6 ms·

Holy hell, they hired 83,000 people since 2019? Does no one care we are $36T in debt? 40% of our income taxes go to paying just the interest on our debt!

ravedave5 2y ago
Neither side cares we are in debt, see the spending plan put forth.
stonogo 2y ago
The PACT act increased the number of veterans eligible for VA health care by hundreds of thousands. Additionally, I question whether attacking the VA's budget, which in its entirety is less than four percent of government spending, is the place to start looking for efficiencies, especially since nearly three percent of the spending budget is unreported.
mystraline 2y ago
Who are we in debt TO?
- duck 2y ago
  Looking at this the other day and found this helpful: https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal-government-has-borrowed-trillions-but-who-owns-all-that-debt/ https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal-government-has-borr...
mindslight 2y ago
These days I just assume that anybody driving focus to the "debt" and specifically "paying interest on the debt" has no idea what they're talking about. Write it on the blackboard 50 times: the budget of a sovereign nation issuing a reserve currency is not analogous to household finances! As a follower of Austrian economics, monetary creation by the government most certainly does matter. But this myopic focus on "debt" completely hides the actual separate dynamics like domestic people/institutions parking their savings, foreign entities buying treasuries for longer term stability, or the political martingale of accounting for legislative monetary creation as paper "debt" to the Federal Reserve. The current cries about government spending are basically aiming at killing the goose that lays golden eggs because some people got frustrated by having to spend some of the proceeds of selling the eggs on the goose's own feed.
- bpt3 2y ago
  Are you aware of the percentage of all federal spending that is consumed by interest on the debt, and more importantly the forward looking projections for that metric? If so, how can you claim said debt is meaningless?
  - mindslight 2y ago
    What do you mean "consumed" ? Government spending is only hard-limited by keeping up this Federal Reserve dog and pony show that seeks to handicap the government's own monetary sovereignty. What you're actually talking about is the risk-free interest rate given out to entities that park their money in Treasuries, which is itself set by the government! This is most certainly not to say that the government could just create an unlimited amount of money and expect there to be no repercussions! Rather the overall point is that it's specious to analyze a government budget in terms of "debt", especially while giving a pass to all of the monetary creation that happens outside of the legislative (loans issued/bought by the Fed).
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The problem with the debt is interest is paid on it. Keep adding to the debt, and the interest payments will cause a doom loop ending in fiscal catastrophe. If the government instead switched to simply printing more money, we'd have runaway inflation, and history tells us what happens next (Weimar Republic).
  - mindslight 2y ago
    The elephant in the room is the continual creation of new money by the Fed by dumping it into the financial industry, while the legislative government itself has been hamstrung (and is now being killed) by this "debt" narrative (eg a good chunk of that debt is just to the Fed itself!). The consumer price inflation from the first Trump term caused the first spate of fiscal responsibility the Fed (and thus the government as a whole) has had for the past several decades. Going forward, the productive path is to tamp down on the monetary creation being done by the Fed, let the asset bubbles cool down, and be comfortable with the legislative government spending newly-created money for deliberate goals.
apical_dendrite 2y ago
Congress passed the PACT act that expanded healthcare and disability benefits for veterans who had been exposed to burn pits, agent orange, and other toxins. These are decades-old problems that the government refused to address until 2022.
Raidion 2y ago
It's not the hiring people that's the problem. Assuming those people "cost" 300k a year all in (benefits/offices,etc) which is probably high, that's $24 billion. The government spent $6.8 trillion, cutting these jobs cuts spending by .3891%. Cutting the people without cutting the programs won't do much and is (IMO) a problem in that you should be able to access government services in a way that the writers of the laws (house/senate) have clearly agreed to. When you're cutting this widely, it's hard to believe you're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
- blindriver 2y ago
  I really hate this attitude. "$24 billion a year is nothing compared to the deficit so we should just ignore it and keep spending." Spending cuts have to start SOMEWHERE. Saying $24 billion is ignorable is insane. We are in a critical debt situation and my children's future is at stake.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    Here are the official spending numbers[0]. The largest categories are: * Social Security * Medicare * National Defense * Interest payments * Health * Income Security * VA Benefits Which of those categories are we overspending on? Which specific cuts do you want to make? It's impossible for one to claim they're serious about saving money without talking about slashing Social Security, Medicare, and the military, which together make 40% of the budgets, so... which are you in favor of reducing? When you've cut your budget as far as you can and you're still losing money, the only solution is to make more money. Here, that means taxes, and specifically that we must start taxing the rich. I'm not saying that as some far-left "eat the rich" kind of thing, but as basic arithmetic and economics. We need more revenue, and it has to come from somewhere. [0] https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
    - bpt3 2y ago
      What gives you the impression we don't tax the rich? The American middle and lower class are the least taxed individuals in the developed world. The upper classes, especially given a disproportionate percentage live in places like NYC and CA, are carrying EU-levels of tax burden already. I'm certainly open to changing how things like dividend income are treated, but the rich don't have enough money to solve our budget problems. I think your question about what spending to reduce was intended to be rhetorical, but the answer is: everything.
kstrauser 2y ago
If the average VA employee cost were $100,000, which I suspect is way more than they pay the average staffer, then those VA employees' annual pay would be about 1/4000th of that debt. There are way, way worse things we could be wasting our money on than providing the decent healthcare we promised our veterans.
WalterBright 2y ago
For context, the VA has 482,000 workers.
lenerdenator 2y ago
> Holy hell, they hired 83,000 people since 2019? Does no one care we are $36T in debt? 40% of our income taxes go to paying just the interest on our debt! In short: no, no one cares. Particularly not the guys in the party who are carrying out these cuts. The main reasons we are, in the year 2025, spending so much on interest, are: 1) A financial crisis that required massive bailouts 2) A pandemic crisis that required massive bailouts 3) Two wars in the Middle East that cost a lot of money 4) Perhaps the most important one here: a steadfast refusal by about half of the country to have a realistic, adult conversation about government revenues since George H.W. Bush said "Read my lips: no new taxes", which solidified the Reagan practice of deficit spending and the belief that any and all private holdings of massive amounts of money were still better than giving that money to the government, regardless of the economic reality. The VA hospital in your nearest city is a drop in the bucket.
milesskorpen 2y ago
This seems pretty suspicious. The whole org is about 450k people and overall federal employment peaked in the 1990s.
toomuchtodo 2y ago
Raise taxes progressively, we can afford it, but the people in control don’t want to so we’re going cut to the bone government services that aren’t intended to be profitable or a business while the debt continues to grow (as there isn’t sufficient discretionary spending to be cut that would materially lower the debt trajectory). There is no other way out. "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else." -- Churchill https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-owns-americas-wealth/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-o... https://usafacts.org/government-spending/ https://usafacts.org/government-spending/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQoh9jdRZPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQoh9jdRZPM
throw0101a 2y ago
> Holy hell, they hired 83,000 people since 2019? Given that there's been a fairly steady ~2.9M federal employees for a few decades now, 83k isn't that much: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 > Does no one care we are $36T in debt? The GOP certainly doesn't, given that they keep cutting revenue: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act
oooyay 2y ago
Elsewhere you commented this: > Veteran suicide can be massively helped with psilosibin and ketamine therapy, things that I hope RFK Jr will implement quickly. This take combined with the immediate cuts at the VA when DOGE opened up are reminiscent of when Trump publicly toyed with putting us all on antidepressants [1]. I'm curious when people who hold the opinions you do just pull the wool off and admit you'd prefer (or just be okay with) us drugged up or dead? Are you afraid someone will judge you for saying you'd rather have a dead veteran than doing what the American people promised to the people who fought their wars? 1: https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-veterans-spravato-antidepressant-johnson-and-johnson https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-veterans-spr...
- blindriver 2y ago
  It sounds like you know NOTHING about ketamine or psilosibin therapy and are just talking hot air. Unlike SSRIs which changes brain chemistry and you need to be on it for the rest of your lives, most people suffering from PTSD recover after a single treatment. That's why ketamine and psilsobin therapy is being pushed by everyone who cares about veteran suicides. Educate yourself.
  - oooyay 2y ago
    I do happen to know a thing or two about them. They're just not silver bullets for veteran suicide, PTSD, or cPTSD in the way you're describing them. They help and should be available for sure. I've advocated for them in the past on this very forum. > most people suffering from PTSD recover after a single treatment. That is incorrect. Ketamine therapy for PTSD or cPTSD (what most at the VA have) requires years of treatment. Psilocybin therapy is the same; I live in Oregon where we have clinics and practitioners for this stuff. None of those clinics claim that one time treatment will cure you. I am a veteran and obviously do care about veteran suicide otherwise I wouldn't be calling out this gobbledegook you're spreading on a public forum in lieu of all the various different kinds of work the VA does.
    - blindriver 2y ago

ravedave5 2y ago

Neither side cares we are in debt, see the spending plan put forth.

stonogo 2y ago

The PACT act increased the number of veterans eligible for VA health care by hundreds of thousands. Additionally, I question whether attacking the VA's budget, which in its entirety is less than four percent of government spending, is the place to start looking for efficiencies, especially since nearly three percent of the spending budget is unreported.

mystraline 2y ago

Who are we in debt TO?

duck 2y ago
Looking at this the other day and found this helpful: https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal-government-has-borrowed-trillions-but-who-owns-all-that-debt/ https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal-government-has-borr...

mindslight 2y ago

These days I just assume that anybody driving focus to the "debt" and specifically "paying interest on the debt" has no idea what they're talking about. Write it on the blackboard 50 times: the budget of a sovereign nation issuing a reserve currency is not analogous to household finances! As a follower of Austrian economics, monetary creation by the government most certainly does matter. But this myopic focus on "debt" completely hides the actual separate dynamics like domestic people/institutions parking their savings, foreign entities buying treasuries for longer term stability, or the political martingale of accounting for legislative monetary creation as paper "debt" to the Federal Reserve. The current cries about government spending are basically aiming at killing the goose that lays golden eggs because some people got frustrated by having to spend some of the proceeds of selling the eggs on the goose's own feed.

bpt3 2y ago
Are you aware of the percentage of all federal spending that is consumed by interest on the debt, and more importantly the forward looking projections for that metric? If so, how can you claim said debt is meaningless?
- mindslight 2y ago
  What do you mean "consumed" ? Government spending is only hard-limited by keeping up this Federal Reserve dog and pony show that seeks to handicap the government's own monetary sovereignty. What you're actually talking about is the risk-free interest rate given out to entities that park their money in Treasuries, which is itself set by the government! This is most certainly not to say that the government could just create an unlimited amount of money and expect there to be no repercussions! Rather the overall point is that it's specious to analyze a government budget in terms of "debt", especially while giving a pass to all of the monetary creation that happens outside of the legislative (loans issued/bought by the Fed).
WalterBright 2y ago
The problem with the debt is interest is paid on it. Keep adding to the debt, and the interest payments will cause a doom loop ending in fiscal catastrophe. If the government instead switched to simply printing more money, we'd have runaway inflation, and history tells us what happens next (Weimar Republic).
- mindslight 2y ago
  The elephant in the room is the continual creation of new money by the Fed by dumping it into the financial industry, while the legislative government itself has been hamstrung (and is now being killed) by this "debt" narrative (eg a good chunk of that debt is just to the Fed itself!). The consumer price inflation from the first Trump term caused the first spate of fiscal responsibility the Fed (and thus the government as a whole) has had for the past several decades. Going forward, the productive path is to tamp down on the monetary creation being done by the Fed, let the asset bubbles cool down, and be comfortable with the legislative government spending newly-created money for deliberate goals.

apical_dendrite 2y ago

Congress passed the PACT act that expanded healthcare and disability benefits for veterans who had been exposed to burn pits, agent orange, and other toxins. These are decades-old problems that the government refused to address until 2022.

Raidion 2y ago

It's not the hiring people that's the problem. Assuming those people "cost" 300k a year all in (benefits/offices,etc) which is probably high, that's $24 billion. The government spent $6.8 trillion, cutting these jobs cuts spending by .3891%. Cutting the people without cutting the programs won't do much and is (IMO) a problem in that you should be able to access government services in a way that the writers of the laws (house/senate) have clearly agreed to. When you're cutting this widely, it's hard to believe you're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

blindriver 2y ago
I really hate this attitude. "$24 billion a year is nothing compared to the deficit so we should just ignore it and keep spending." Spending cuts have to start SOMEWHERE. Saying $24 billion is ignorable is insane. We are in a critical debt situation and my children's future is at stake.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Here are the official spending numbers[0]. The largest categories are: * Social Security * Medicare * National Defense * Interest payments * Health * Income Security * VA Benefits Which of those categories are we overspending on? Which specific cuts do you want to make? It's impossible for one to claim they're serious about saving money without talking about slashing Social Security, Medicare, and the military, which together make 40% of the budgets, so... which are you in favor of reducing? When you've cut your budget as far as you can and you're still losing money, the only solution is to make more money. Here, that means taxes, and specifically that we must start taxing the rich. I'm not saying that as some far-left "eat the rich" kind of thing, but as basic arithmetic and economics. We need more revenue, and it has to come from somewhere. [0] https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/federal-spending/ https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...
  - bpt3 2y ago
    What gives you the impression we don't tax the rich? The American middle and lower class are the least taxed individuals in the developed world. The upper classes, especially given a disproportionate percentage live in places like NYC and CA, are carrying EU-levels of tax burden already. I'm certainly open to changing how things like dividend income are treated, but the rich don't have enough money to solve our budget problems. I think your question about what spending to reduce was intended to be rhetorical, but the answer is: everything.

kstrauser 2y ago

If the average VA employee cost were $100,000, which I suspect is way more than they pay the average staffer, then those VA employees' annual pay would be about 1/4000th of that debt. There are way, way worse things we could be wasting our money on than providing the decent healthcare we promised our veterans.

WalterBright 2y ago

For context, the VA has 482,000 workers.

lenerdenator 2y ago

> Holy hell, they hired 83,000 people since 2019? Does no one care we are $36T in debt? 40% of our income taxes go to paying just the interest on our debt! In short: no, no one cares. Particularly not the guys in the party who are carrying out these cuts. The main reasons we are, in the year 2025, spending so much on interest, are: 1) A financial crisis that required massive bailouts 2) A pandemic crisis that required massive bailouts 3) Two wars in the Middle East that cost a lot of money 4) Perhaps the most important one here: a steadfast refusal by about half of the country to have a realistic, adult conversation about government revenues since George H.W. Bush said "Read my lips: no new taxes", which solidified the Reagan practice of deficit spending and the belief that any and all private holdings of massive amounts of money were still better than giving that money to the government, regardless of the economic reality. The VA hospital in your nearest city is a drop in the bucket.

milesskorpen 2y ago

This seems pretty suspicious. The whole org is about 450k people and overall federal employment peaked in the 1990s.

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Raise taxes progressively, we can afford it, but the people in control don’t want to so we’re going cut to the bone government services that aren’t intended to be profitable or a business while the debt continues to grow (as there isn’t sufficient discretionary spending to be cut that would materially lower the debt trajectory). There is no other way out. "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing, after they've tried everything else." -- Churchill https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-owns-americas-wealth/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/a-visual-breakdown-of-who-o... https://usafacts.org/government-spending/ https://usafacts.org/government-spending/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQoh9jdRZPM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQoh9jdRZPM

throw0101a 2y ago

> Holy hell, they hired 83,000 people since 2019? Given that there's been a fairly steady ~2.9M federal employees for a few decades now, 83k isn't that much: * https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES9091000001 > Does no one care we are $36T in debt? The GOP certainly doesn't, given that they keep cutting revenue: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act

oooyay 2y ago

Elsewhere you commented this: > Veteran suicide can be massively helped with psilosibin and ketamine therapy, things that I hope RFK Jr will implement quickly. This take combined with the immediate cuts at the VA when DOGE opened up are reminiscent of when Trump publicly toyed with putting us all on antidepressants [1]. I'm curious when people who hold the opinions you do just pull the wool off and admit you'd prefer (or just be okay with) us drugged up or dead? Are you afraid someone will judge you for saying you'd rather have a dead veteran than doing what the American people promised to the people who fought their wars? 1: https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-veterans-spravato-antidepressant-johnson-and-johnson https://www.propublica.org/article/donald-trump-veterans-spr...

blindriver 2y ago
It sounds like you know NOTHING about ketamine or psilosibin therapy and are just talking hot air. Unlike SSRIs which changes brain chemistry and you need to be on it for the rest of your lives, most people suffering from PTSD recover after a single treatment. That's why ketamine and psilsobin therapy is being pushed by everyone who cares about veteran suicides. Educate yourself.
- oooyay 2y ago
  I do happen to know a thing or two about them. They're just not silver bullets for veteran suicide, PTSD, or cPTSD in the way you're describing them. They help and should be available for sure. I've advocated for them in the past on this very forum. > most people suffering from PTSD recover after a single treatment. That is incorrect. Ketamine therapy for PTSD or cPTSD (what most at the VA have) requires years of treatment. Psilocybin therapy is the same; I live in Oregon where we have clinics and practitioners for this stuff. None of those clinics claim that one time treatment will cure you. I am a veteran and obviously do care about veteran suicide otherwise I wouldn't be calling out this gobbledegook you're spreading on a public forum in lieu of all the various different kinds of work the VA does.
  - blindriver 2y ago