- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The U.S. national debt now exceeds 100% of gross domestic product
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:55 am to wdhalgren
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:55 am to wdhalgren
quote:
From my head.
Hmm. From the WSJ:
quote:
As of March 31, the country’s publicly held debt was $31.265 trillion, while GDP over the preceding year was $31.216 trillion, according to data released Thursday. That puts the ratio at 100.2%, compared with 99.5% when the last fiscal year ended Sept. 30.
Now I’m not saying that the WSJ is infallible, but if forced to choose between the data in their article and the information in wdhalgren‘s head on Tigerdroppings, I’m going to have to lean toward the WSJ.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:55 am to 4cubbies
quote:
4cubbies
Not too active.
Anyone know if 4chubby bitched about SNAP not covering sugary snacks? What about USAID cuts?
Posted on 4/30/26 at 9:57 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
the country’s publicly held debt was $31.265 trillion
quote:
Now I’m not saying that the WSJ is infallible, but if forced to choose between the data in their article and the information in wdhalgren‘s head on Tigerdroppings, I’m going to have to lean toward the WSJ.
Lean however you please. Debt held by the public is not the entirety of US fed gov debt. The total FedGov debt is greater than $39T. As you point out, the WSJ is not infallible. But even more importantly, they are not unbiased when it comes to what they choose to publish. That includes statistics.
This post was edited on 4/30/26 at 10:04 am
Posted on 4/30/26 at 10:21 am to Green Chili Tiger
And no one cares.... especially not the politicians
Posted on 4/30/26 at 10:22 am to Green Chili Tiger
Thanks Conservatives and Beta male liberals like the OP
Posted on 4/30/26 at 10:22 am to wdhalgren
I see what you’re saying, but this isn’t some nefarious choice by the WSJ. Most economists use publicly held debt when assessing debt to GDP. It’s a much more common measurement when analyzing market impact of U.S. debt.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 10:49 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
I see what you’re saying, but this isn’t some nefarious choice by the WSJ. Most economists use publicly held debt when assessing debt to GDP. It’s a much more common measurement when analyzing market impact of U.S. debt.
Economists are political animals. They use statistics however suits their purposes, as does the WSJ. The problem with publicly held debt is that the relative size of publicly held vs non-publicly held has varied significantly over time, depending mainly on relative size of the Social Security Trust fund. Therefore total (publicly held and intragovernmental) debt is the only way to get an apples to apples comparison of US federal debt over the decades, which is what that WSJ article was claiming (but failing) to do.
Using total fed debt as the metric, the US is already at an all time high debt to gdp ratio since approximately the end of 2024. Debt/GDP has been > 100% for several years. For the last decade or so, Social Security trust fund has been liquidating assets (special issue securities), which then converts intragovermental debt to publicly held Treasury debt. Unless the plan is to default on intragovernmental debt, total federal debt is the honest way to look at US federal debt load.
This post was edited on 4/30/26 at 12:51 pm
Posted on 4/30/26 at 10:53 am to Green Chili Tiger
But let's start another war! Yeah!
Posted on 4/30/26 at 10:54 am to Green Chili Tiger
You know those brown kids from other countries you think all look the same? We have to house and feed them while the Uniparty grifts us.
It is a great idea to cut spending. Where would you start?
It is a great idea to cut spending. Where would you start?
Posted on 4/30/26 at 10:58 am to SloaneRanger
quote:
What percentage of it is due to fraud and outright theft?
At a minimum 20-30% of US taxpayer dollars remitted to the federal government are waste, fraud and outright theft.
Think about it.
The US is nearly $40 trillion in debt and all we hear about is how social security is going to collapse in the next 5-10 years, Medicare/Medicade is underfunded, the US military now has a nearly $1 trillion budget, and on and on. With $40 trillion of US debt the US should have jewel encrusted bridges and a few roads paved with gold.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 11:02 am to NIH
Do you want government spending to be cut? Where?
EVERYWHERE.........................
EVERYWHERE.........................
Posted on 4/30/26 at 11:10 am to Azkiger
quote:
Anyone know if 4chubby bitched about SNAP not covering sugary snacks? What about USAID cuts?
if only there was a way to find this information....
Chicken should consider implementing a "search" feature.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 11:20 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
The U.S. national debt now exceeds 100% of gross domestic product, crossing a once-unthinkable threshold, on the way toward breaking the record set in the wake of World War II.
World War Eleven?
Posted on 4/30/26 at 11:21 am to Green Chili Tiger
Now that's what I call perfect leverage.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 11:22 am to Green Chili Tiger
quote:Okay, and...?
The U.S. national debt now exceeds 100% of gross domestic product
Posted on 4/30/26 at 11:23 am to Green Chili Tiger
From 1976 through 2008, in all but one year GDP grew more than the deficit each year (total dollar amounts, not growth percentages).
From 2009 to present there have been only 5 years when the dollar amount of GDP growth has outpaced deficit spending for the same year.
In other words, this started with the GFC and government's mishandling has allowed it to continue to linger to the point where if we were to cut spending to just balance the budget (forget a surplus), the country would go into a Recession (possibly a Depression) due to any GDP growth being dependent on not just ongoing deficit spending, but the constant increase in ongoing deficit spending.
From 2009 to present there have been only 5 years when the dollar amount of GDP growth has outpaced deficit spending for the same year.
In other words, this started with the GFC and government's mishandling has allowed it to continue to linger to the point where if we were to cut spending to just balance the budget (forget a surplus), the country would go into a Recession (possibly a Depression) due to any GDP growth being dependent on not just ongoing deficit spending, but the constant increase in ongoing deficit spending.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 11:23 am to NIH
quote:
Do you want government spending to be cut? Where?
Typical of democrats, you won't get an answer from her. She only yells and screams and says how bad things are. None of them offer any real possible solutions or even hints of an honest dialog to resolve the issue.
It's like negotiating with Iranians in so many ways.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 11:24 am to Green Chili Tiger
We are a Welfare State full of low IQ, uneducated, unskilled Illegal Immigrants. Also, there is little to no difference in spending between Trump and Biden. Obama actually spent less than Trump. Think about that for a minute.
Posted on 4/30/26 at 11:26 am to Green Chili Tiger
When times were tight with the corporation for whom I worked, management seriously went through everyone's budget to see where cuts could be made. And if really bad, we had MacKenzie show up. Everybody with Assistant in their job title was sweating.
Popular
Back to top


1








