4 ms·

from paragraph 1: "That is largely because the main drivers of spending kept rising: social programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and interest on t

from paragraph 1: "That is largely because the main drivers of spending kept rising: social programs, including Social Security and Medicare, and interest on the public debt, which topped $1 trillion by one measure for the first time."

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
It sure would be nice if, instead of cutting taxes for the ultra-wealthy, that money being given back to the people who need it the absolute least were instead used to reduce the public debt. And how much money did DOGE spend on its quest to save nothing by trashing scientific research?
- InTheArena 1y ago
  This is a problem that is far far older then DOGE. And maybe, just maybe, the answer is to both raise taxes and reduce spending?
  - danaris 1y ago
    The thing is, the most common spending that they attempt to cut is spending that has multiplier effects on the economy, because it's giving money (whether directly or indirectly) to the poorest people.
    - InTheArena 1y ago
      Really? Please provide a decline in net dollars (excluding projected drawdowns) that demonstrates this point. On a dollar-by-dollar basis, regardless of economic station, _every_ American has seen a combined discretionary + non-discretionary increase in benefits since 1980. The group that is less advantaged is the upper-middle class, which has seen relative stagnation.
  - wilg 1y ago
    Of course that's the answer, it's just people don't want to do that.
  - Dig1t 1y ago
    Aren’t tariffs basically raising taxes like you’re suggesting? The new tariffs are projected to raise an additional $200B this year for the federal government. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-could-collect-300-billion-tariff-revenue-this-year-treasury-chief-says-2025-07-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-could-collect-300-billio... I don’t think the next administration, whichever party ends up winning, will be likely to reverse these tariffs just based on how much revenue they bring in for the federal government. Reducing spending is of course another different problem altogether.
    - Fade_Dance 1y ago
      It raises taxes but arguably impacts GDP in a very direct and equal way, so it mostly nets out. The argument that follows from there would be that taxing the rich would have less of an impact on GDP.
  - anthonypasq 1y ago
    unfortunately boomers want neither :)
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
    - robocat 1y ago
      No point dunking on retirees. You'll understand when you retire (and become a boomer equivalent)
      - anthonypasq 1y ago
        i pray every day that i dont become as selfish and uninterested in the welfare of the next generation as current boomers.
        robocat 1y ago
        Why would you pray for that? Do you not have some influence over your future morals? There's always a religious reference to say the same thing e.g "The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps"?
walkabout 1y ago
Social security doesn't contribute to the general budget deficit. Its funding source is totally distinct. It doesn't and can't (under current laws) borrow to fund itself—if nothing changes, then as the fund runs low, payments will be reduced. Mention of Social Security as a major driver of the budget deficit is a red flag you're reading something by someone who's ill-informed on the topic, or else they're deliberately bullshitting you.
- jack_h 1y ago
  You’re only considering one part of the system, not the whole. As the GAO puts it[1]: > Intragovernmental debt holdings represent federal debt owed by Treasury to federal government accounts—primarily federal trust funds such as those established for Social Security and Medicare—that typically have an obligation to invest their excess annual receipts (including interest earnings) over disbursements in federal securities. > Debt held by the public represents a claim on today’s taxpayers and absorbs resources from today’s economy, meaning that when an investor buys Treasury securities it is not investing that money elsewhere in the economy. > Intragovernmental debt holdings reflect a claim on taxpayers and the economy in the future. Specifically, when federal government accounts redeem Treasury securities to obtain cash to fund expenditures, Treasury usually borrows from the public to finance these redemptions. Or to put it simply the excess contributions are lent to the Treasury who uses it for general government expenditures. When it’s time to pay it back the Treasury can either pay it with tax revenue assuming it has excess or has cut spending elsewhere or it will be forced to borrow it. The latter is generally what happens. I wouldn’t be so quick to call people ill-informed on this subject if I were you. [1] https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107138.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107138.pdf
  - walkabout 1y ago
    No, I considered the whole thing. It's worth, in some contexts, pointing out that we borrow to service existing debt, but it remains irrelevant that one of the owners of that debt happens to be the Social Security Trust Fund, if we're talking about the budget deficit. We halt all spending on Social Security tomorrow. Great, wonderful. Buuuuut... that debt still exists and nothing whatsoever changes for the budget deficit. [EDIT pedantic nuance: technically it might let us spread repaying that debt over a longer period, but the debt itself remains identical, unless we decide we're just gonna let it sit there and never pay anything against it, which is identical to nullifying it, which, see next paragraph] Unless we're prepared to nullify debts we've already incurred, in which case, why single out the debt Social Security owns for that treatment? > I wouldn’t be so quick to call people ill-informed on this subject if I were you. Nah, gonna continue until I see any reason to stop.
HWR_14 1y ago
> topped $1 trillion by one measure How is the amount of money paid as interest dependent on the measure used? I can understand different interpretations of some expenses as capex vs opex, and similar other questions. But interest?
- jtbayly 1y ago
  Once the government is involved, everything is "interpretation." Unemployment? Well... it depends on what you mean by unemployment. We changed how we "count" a few years back. Owe? It depends what you mean by "owe." What is the definition of "is?"
- greyface- 1y ago
  If I buy a $1000 bond with a 1 year duration and 2% coupon for $950, realizing $70 of net income from it over the following year ($20 coupon payments, $50 "extra" principal return), has the government paid $20 or $70 of interest?
  - Apes 1y ago
    I'm not sure there's a significant difference in practice, but technically the $50 would be part of the bond's debt principal, not interest. A bond with a face value of $1000 means the government has $1000 of debt regardless of what is paid for the bond. The coupon payments represent the "interest" on that debt - the $20 coupon means the government is paying $20 of interest per year. Paying below face value doesn’t make the difference "interest." It simply means investors are buying the bond at a discount, so the government receives less cash upfront in exchange for repaying the full $1,000 at maturity. Bonds differ from traditional loans in that their market price can fluctuate, but the debt obligation remains fixed at the face value. In practice, the government's accounting labels the discount as an "interest expense", so it still gets captured as interest in the budget.
    - greyface- 1y ago
      That's a reasonable interpretation from the Treasury's perspective. But if you ask the IRS, I've realized all $70 as interest income ($50 as OID, which they consider a form of interest). (And yes, coupons pay 2x yearly, but they are quoted on an annual basis; I would receive two $10 payments.)

BugsJustFindMe 1y ago

It sure would be nice if, instead of cutting taxes for the ultra-wealthy, that money being given back to the people who need it the absolute least were instead used to reduce the public debt. And how much money did DOGE spend on its quest to save nothing by trashing scientific research?

InTheArena 1y ago
This is a problem that is far far older then DOGE. And maybe, just maybe, the answer is to both raise taxes and reduce spending?
- danaris 1y ago
  The thing is, the most common spending that they attempt to cut is spending that has multiplier effects on the economy, because it's giving money (whether directly or indirectly) to the poorest people.
  - InTheArena 1y ago
    Really? Please provide a decline in net dollars (excluding projected drawdowns) that demonstrates this point. On a dollar-by-dollar basis, regardless of economic station, _every_ American has seen a combined discretionary + non-discretionary increase in benefits since 1980. The group that is less advantaged is the upper-middle class, which has seen relative stagnation.
- wilg 1y ago
  Of course that's the answer, it's just people don't want to do that.
- Dig1t 1y ago
  Aren’t tariffs basically raising taxes like you’re suggesting? The new tariffs are projected to raise an additional $200B this year for the federal government. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-could-collect-300-billion-tariff-revenue-this-year-treasury-chief-says-2025-07-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-could-collect-300-billio... I don’t think the next administration, whichever party ends up winning, will be likely to reverse these tariffs just based on how much revenue they bring in for the federal government. Reducing spending is of course another different problem altogether.
  - Fade_Dance 1y ago
    It raises taxes but arguably impacts GDP in a very direct and equal way, so it mostly nets out. The argument that follows from there would be that taxing the rich would have less of an impact on GDP.
- anthonypasq 1y ago
  unfortunately boomers want neither :)
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - robocat 1y ago
    No point dunking on retirees. You'll understand when you retire (and become a boomer equivalent)
    - anthonypasq 1y ago
      i pray every day that i dont become as selfish and uninterested in the welfare of the next generation as current boomers.
      - robocat 1y ago
        Why would you pray for that? Do you not have some influence over your future morals? There's always a religious reference to say the same thing e.g "The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps"?

walkabout 1y ago

Social security doesn't contribute to the general budget deficit. Its funding source is totally distinct. It doesn't and can't (under current laws) borrow to fund itself—if nothing changes, then as the fund runs low, payments will be reduced. Mention of Social Security as a major driver of the budget deficit is a red flag you're reading something by someone who's ill-informed on the topic, or else they're deliberately bullshitting you.

jack_h 1y ago
You’re only considering one part of the system, not the whole. As the GAO puts it[1]: > Intragovernmental debt holdings represent federal debt owed by Treasury to federal government accounts—primarily federal trust funds such as those established for Social Security and Medicare—that typically have an obligation to invest their excess annual receipts (including interest earnings) over disbursements in federal securities. > Debt held by the public represents a claim on today’s taxpayers and absorbs resources from today’s economy, meaning that when an investor buys Treasury securities it is not investing that money elsewhere in the economy. > Intragovernmental debt holdings reflect a claim on taxpayers and the economy in the future. Specifically, when federal government accounts redeem Treasury securities to obtain cash to fund expenditures, Treasury usually borrows from the public to finance these redemptions. Or to put it simply the excess contributions are lent to the Treasury who uses it for general government expenditures. When it’s time to pay it back the Treasury can either pay it with tax revenue assuming it has excess or has cut spending elsewhere or it will be forced to borrow it. The latter is generally what happens. I wouldn’t be so quick to call people ill-informed on this subject if I were you. [1] https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107138.pdf https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107138.pdf
- walkabout 1y ago
  No, I considered the whole thing. It's worth, in some contexts, pointing out that we borrow to service existing debt, but it remains irrelevant that one of the owners of that debt happens to be the Social Security Trust Fund, if we're talking about the budget deficit. We halt all spending on Social Security tomorrow. Great, wonderful. Buuuuut... that debt still exists and nothing whatsoever changes for the budget deficit. [EDIT pedantic nuance: technically it might let us spread repaying that debt over a longer period, but the debt itself remains identical, unless we decide we're just gonna let it sit there and never pay anything against it, which is identical to nullifying it, which, see next paragraph] Unless we're prepared to nullify debts we've already incurred, in which case, why single out the debt Social Security owns for that treatment? > I wouldn’t be so quick to call people ill-informed on this subject if I were you. Nah, gonna continue until I see any reason to stop.

HWR_14 1y ago

> topped $1 trillion by one measure How is the amount of money paid as interest dependent on the measure used? I can understand different interpretations of some expenses as capex vs opex, and similar other questions. But interest?

jtbayly 1y ago
Once the government is involved, everything is "interpretation." Unemployment? Well... it depends on what you mean by unemployment. We changed how we "count" a few years back. Owe? It depends what you mean by "owe." What is the definition of "is?"
greyface- 1y ago
If I buy a $1000 bond with a 1 year duration and 2% coupon for $950, realizing $70 of net income from it over the following year ($20 coupon payments, $50 "extra" principal return), has the government paid $20 or $70 of interest?
- Apes 1y ago
  I'm not sure there's a significant difference in practice, but technically the $50 would be part of the bond's debt principal, not interest. A bond with a face value of $1000 means the government has $1000 of debt regardless of what is paid for the bond. The coupon payments represent the "interest" on that debt - the $20 coupon means the government is paying $20 of interest per year. Paying below face value doesn’t make the difference "interest." It simply means investors are buying the bond at a discount, so the government receives less cash upfront in exchange for repaying the full $1,000 at maturity. Bonds differ from traditional loans in that their market price can fluctuate, but the debt obligation remains fixed at the face value. In practice, the government's accounting labels the discount as an "interest expense", so it still gets captured as interest in the budget.
  - greyface- 1y ago
    That's a reasonable interpretation from the Treasury's perspective. But if you ask the IRS, I've realized all $70 as interest income ($50 as OID, which they consider a form of interest). (And yes, coupons pay 2x yearly, but they are quoted on an annual basis; I would receive two $10 payments.)