Trump Admin is now dealing with US debt...

[QP!]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


By rapidly buying back the long term debt investors were abandoning or not renewing and then issuing much higher interest rate, short term debt to pay for that, by enticing investors with the higher yield.

This is a disastrous way to not engage with the structural problems this Trump admin has created with Tariffs and shrinking the revenue base via tax cuts and pushing out migrant labor and causing a shrink in GDP and productivity.

This is something that will put significant direct pressure on the NEXT Potus Admin and ones that follow who will have to then deal with all this short term bonds maturing and redeeming.

The long term debt was always a big problem for future generations, but this short term debt (replacing the mortgage with credit cards) is just so much worse.

.

Treasury Cannot and Should Not Engineer Bond Prices​

Financing a Long-Term Asset with Short-Term Debt​

 

[goat]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


By rapidly buying back the long term debt investors were abandoning or not renewing and then issuing much higher interest rate, short term debt to pay for that, by enticing investors with the higher yield.

This is a disastrous way to not engage with the structural problems this Trump admin has created with Tariffs and shrinking the revenue base via tax cuts and pushing out migrant labor and causing a shrink in GDP and productivity.

This is something that will put significant direct pressure on the NEXT Potus Admin and ones that follow who will have to then deal with all this short term bonds maturing and redeeming.

The long term debt was always a big problem for future generations, but this short term debt (replacing the mortgage with credit cards) is just so much worse.

.

Treasury Cannot and Should Not Engineer Bond Prices​

Financing a Long-Term Asset with Short-Term Debt​

Trump and Biden added $20 trillion to the national debt in less than 10 years. That's half of US debt by only 2 potus.

 

[QP!]

Trump and Biden added $20 trillion to the national debt in less than 10 years. That's half of US debt by only 2 potus.

the big difference being that Biden, like Obama prior utilized debt in the way debt was designed to be used. To help provide liquidity to a market during times of extreme stress (downturn, recession, etc) whereas Trump did the opposite and deployed much more debt than either of them when he inherited already improving economies where debt theory says a focus on paying down debt, to prepare for the next 'rainy day', is what needs to be done.

While people can quibble with the tactics chosen by Obama and Biden to utilize debt (and i do) they clearly inherited economies that required debt usage and they succeeded in righting the ship to the envy of the rest of the world. Trump tactically is using debt in a horrendous way when he has none of the basis to be using debt to begin with.

 

[goat]

the big difference being that Biden, like Obama prior utilized debt in the way debt was designed to be used. To help provide liquidity to a market during times of extreme stress (downturn, recession, etc) whereas Trump did the opposite and deployed much more debt than either of them when he inherited already improving economies where debt theory says a focus on paying down debt, to prepare for the next 'rainy day', is what needs to be done.

While people can quibble with the tactics chosen by Obama and Biden to utilize debt (and i do) they clearly inherited economies that required debt usage and they succeeded in righting the ship to the envy of the rest of the world. Trump tactically is using debt in a horrendous way when he has none of the basis to be using debt to begin with.

Don't kid yourself. Obama increase spending on the Afghan war even though it was already lost.
Obama ran out of bombs on Yemen and Syria and was running weapons from Benghazi.
Obama bailed out Wall Street while foreclosing on 10 million family homes.
Obama started an endless supply of QE to billionaire speculators who were way over leveraged.

Genocide Joe started 2 wars yet dems said nothing about it. How much do you think the covid scam added to the debt? There is no difference between Obama, Biden, and Trump.

 

[QP!]

Don't kid yourself. Obama increase spending on the Afghan war even though it was already lost.
Obama ran out of bombs on Yemen and Syria and was running weapons from Benghazi.
Obama bailed out Wall Street while foreclosing on 10 million family homes.
Obama started an endless supply of QE to billionaire speculators who were way over leveraged.

Genocide Joe started 2 wars yet dems said nothing about it. How much do you think the covid scam added to the debt? There is no difference between Obama, Biden, and Trump.

i am not speaking to each and every line item of spending as no POTUS passes that test including Clinton who is the only success, in this regard in our lifetime.

What i am speaking to is the DRIVERS or key factors.

Obama inherited a US on the brink of recessionary or even depressionary pressures due to the bank crisis that proceeded him. And while I do not agree with HOW he chose to bail out the market (i argue home owners should have got mortgage credits in stead of Wall street banks) the FACT is Obama's moves did right the US economy and lead the US to be the worlds envy as they pulled out of that recession.

Whether you believe Covid a hox or not is not relevant here. Biden inherited an economy that was in ruins and going the wrong way from Trump, who was failing badly at managing it during the crisis and Biden was able to make the choices that saw America emerge out of it, again, as the top performing economy against all peer countries.

Trump is piling on debt and drowning otherwise improving economies.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

the big difference being that Biden, like Obama prior utilized debt in the way debt was designed to be used. To help provide liquidity to a market during times of extreme stress (downturn, recession, etc) whereas Trump did the opposite and deployed much more debt than either of them when he inherited already improving economies where debt theory says a focus on paying down debt, to prepare for the next 'rainy day', is what needs to be done.

While people can quibble with the tactics chosen by Obama and Biden to utilize debt (and i do) they clearly inherited economies that required debt usage and they succeeded in righting the ship to the envy of the rest of the world. Trump tactically is using debt in a horrendous way when he has none of the basis to be using debt to begin with.

No, they both followed half of Keynesian economics: They borrowed and increased debt to gain short-term economic upturns. The problem is that the government never returned to a situation where there was a surplus to pay off debt and end the debt cycle.

Why Keynes’ Economic Theories Failed in Reality | Investing.com

Market Analysis by covering: . Read 's Market Analysis on Investing.com

www.investing.com

Why Keynes’ Economic Theories Failed In Reality – AdvisorAnalyst.com

Why Keynes’ Economic Theories Failed In Reality

An Examination Of How Keynesians Got Everything So Wrong

lanceroberts.substack.com

The Failure of Keynesian Economics

That anyone can still believe Keynes’s General Theory holds any answers to the world’s economic problems is one of those sad facts that make one realize just

fee.org

If you borrow and never fully pay off debt, or simply increase the debt with a new cycle of borrowing, eventually you end up bankrupt. In politics where being in office is temporary, the goal of politicians is often to keep the economy going and not worry about the eventual train wreck to come. That will be somebody else's problem in the future. Both Biden and Obama, along with Democrats, and even many Republicans, follow that dictum.

Biden and Obama utilized debt because it was a quick and simple means to get a short-term result that made them look good while in office. They, being rational, and self-serving, politicians, didn't give a shit that they were wrecking the economy in future decades. That was somebody else's problem, not theirs.

An "improving" economy built on short-term government spending without any hope of returning to a point where that spending creates a surplus is a fool's errand. It's a false hope where there is none.

 

[goat]

i am not speaking to each and every line item of spending as no POTUS passes that test including Clinton who is the only success, in this regard in our lifetime.

What i am speaking to is the DRIVERS or key factors.

Obama inherited a US on the brink of recessionary or even depressionary pressures due to the bank crisis that proceeded him. And while I do not agree with HOW he chose to bail out the market (i argue home owners should have got mortgage credits in stead of Wall street banks) the FACT is Obama's moves did right the US economy and lead the US to be the worlds envy as they pulled out of that recession.

Whether you believe Covid a hox or not is not relevant here. Biden inherited an economy that was in ruins and going the wrong way from Trump, who was failing badly at managing it during the crisis and Biden was able to make the choices that saw America emerge out of it, again, as the top performing economy against all peer countries.

Trump is piling on debt and drowning otherwise improving economies.

Obama, Trump, and Biden added $29 trillion to the debt. If we include GWB, it's $34 trillion out of the $40 trillion we have today. Empire is out of money and there are only 4 people to blame.

 

[QP!]

...
Biden and Obama utilized debt because it was a quick and simple means to get a short-term result that made them look good while in office. They, being rational, and self-serving, politicians, didn't give a shit that they were wrecking the economy in future decades. That was somebody else's problem, not theirs.

For Biden and Obama the use of debt, to deal with the catastrophic economic situations they inherited from Republicans was a NECESSITY.

Trump use of debt was entirely unnecessary and not just that harmful for the reasons you outlined.

An "improving" economy built on short-term government spending without any hope of returning to a point where that spending creates a surplus is a fool's errand. It's a false hope where there is none.

Agreed. What Trump is doing AGAIN is wrong. Especially the move now to swap out most long term debt bonds and instead circulate higher yield, short term ones.

Those are setting up the next debt bomb for the next POTUS who follows as those all redeem.

 

[QP!]

Obama, Trump, and Biden added $29 trillion to the debt. If we include GWB, it's $34 trillion out of the $40 trillion we have today. Empire is out of money and there are only 4 people to blame.

Ya i am not really interested in one forum posters weak opinion that debt has no role in a government basket when the country is in midst of severe liquidity crisis (Obama) or severe post pandemic crisis (Biden).

You can pretend to yourself that it is all the same. But the main purpose of gov't utilizing debt well is for major infrastracture projects or to help the US economy collapsing during some crisis.

Only Trump piled on debt in good times instead of doing like Clinton and running a surplus.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

For Biden and Obama the use of debt, to deal with the catastrophic economic situations they inherited from Republicans was a NECESSITY.

Trump use of debt was entirely unnecessary and not just that harmful for the reasons you outlined.

You can argue that but it doesn't change one iota what I stated. Without returning to a net gain budget at some point, bankruptcy is the eventual outcome and all three contributed to that with equal culpability.

Agreed. What Trump is doing AGAIN is wrong. Especially the move now to swap out most long term debt bonds and instead circulate higher yield, short term ones.

Those are setting up the next debt bomb for the next POTUS who follows as those all redeem.

What Biden and Obama did was equally wrong. The only President in recent times that can make a claim otherwise is Clinton who managed to get to a balanced budget for like two years.

 

[LurchAddams]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


By rapidly buying back the long term debt investors were abandoning or not renewing and then issuing much higher interest rate, short term debt to pay for that, by enticing investors with the higher yield.

This is a disastrous way to not engage with the structural problems this Trump admin has created with Tariffs and shrinking the revenue base via tax cuts and pushing out migrant labor and causing a shrink in GDP and productivity.

This is something that will put significant direct pressure on the NEXT Potus Admin and ones that follow who will have to then deal with all this short term bonds maturing and redeeming.

The long term debt was always a big problem for future generations, but this short term debt (replacing the mortgage with credit cards) is just so much worse.

.

Treasury Cannot and Should Not Engineer Bond Prices​

Financing a Long-Term Asset with Short-Term Debt​

My prediction: trumptards are going to say "it's all Biden's fault". Then run away.

 

[QP!]

You can argue that but it doesn't change one iota what I stated. Without returning to a net gain budget at some point, bankruptcy is the eventual outcome and all three contributed to that with equal culpability.

Sure but that DOES NOT have to occur within the same term and many times will not because even as things improve movements by the gov't need to be graduated and slow to give the market time to fill in the gaps as the liquidity being provided is slowly withdrawn and instead the gov't moves to debt repayment.

What is crystal clear and undeniable is that Trump, post Obama, and Trump post Biden had every opportunity to be like CLinton and run surpluses and pay down some debt if he wanted. Instead he piled on record debt both times.

What Biden and Obama did was equally wrong.

FALSE. Demonstrably false. And see how the US, under their administrations ABSOLUTELY LEAD THE WORLD with the BEST MARKET AND GDP RESULTS, proves you are wrong.

You can (and i am sure you will) try to say, I Terry know better, but no one cares about your bias.

The only President in recent times that can make a claim otherwise is Clinton who managed to get to a balanced budget for like two years.

Agreed.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Sure but that DOES NOT have to occur within the same term and many times will not because even as things improve movements by the gov't need to be graduated and slow to give the market time to fill in the gaps as the liquidity being provided is slowly withdrawn and instead the gov't moves to debt repayment.

What is crystal clear and undeniable is that Trump, post Obama, and Trump post Biden had every opportunity to be like CLinton and run surpluses and pay down some debt if he wanted. Instead he piled on record debt both times.

Bullshit! Congress sets the budget, and today I'd say it is impossible for any Congress to get to a balanced budget. That is because roughly two-thirds of the budget now is mandatory spending programs that cannot be ended or reduced.

FALSE. Demonstrably false. And see how the US, under their administrations ABSOLUTELY LEAD THE WORLD with the BEST MARKET AND GDP RESULTS, proves you are wrong.

You can (and i am sure you will) try to say, I Terry know better, but no one cares about your bias.

Yea, sure.

 

[QP!]

Bullshit! Congress sets the budget, and today I'd say it is impossible for any Congress to get to a balanced budget. That is because roughly two-thirds of the budget now is mandatory spending programs that cannot be ended or reduced.


Yea, sure.

Bullshit. If tax rates remained at the Pre Reagan levels, across the board these issues would not exist.

This is a follow on to right wing "Trickle Down Economics' and series of 'tax cuts after tax cuts' and NOT the programs.


-----

Many supported studies show that If the United States had maintained its pre-Reagan structural tax revenues, the national debt would be entirely paid off today, and the country would have a massive multi-trillion-dollar surplus to easily fund entitlements. [1]

The pre-Reagan era (specifically 1946 through 1980) was characterized by much higher marginal tax rates on corporations and upper-income earners. The Brookings Institution notes that when Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the top marginal income tax rate was 70%. Through his landmark 1981 and 1986 tax overhauls, he slashed that top rate down to 28%, fundamentally lowering the baseline of federal revenue as a percentage of the economy. [1, 2]

Multiple fiscal analyses map out this exact "what-if" scenario, focusing on the structural revenue gap and the compounding effects of subsequent tax cuts. [1, 2]

---

The Core Analysis: Structural Revenue Failure
The primary analysis comes from non-partisan and fiscal think tanks and macroeconomic retrospectives published by institutional managers like J.P. Morgan Asset Management. [1, 3]

Their findings highlight a permanent shift in federal revenue relative to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP):

• The Baseline Shift: For decades before the 1980s, federal revenues regularly matched or outpaced economic growth. However, because of the sequential tax cuts started by Reagan and deepened by the George W. Bush, 2017 Trump, and 2025 Trump tax cuts, federal revenues plummeted from an historical average of roughly 19.1% of GDP down to a modern average of 16.7%. [1, 2, 3]
• The Compounding Effect: A CRFB analysis reported by Yahoo Finance notes that just the major tax cuts enacted in the 21st century alone are responsible for 37% of the total current debt. When adding the compounding interest required to service that borrowed money found that these cuts drive over 57% of the modern debt-to-GDP ratio. [, 2, 3]
• The Ultimate Conclusion: Economists from these groups calculate that "absent these tax cuts, the US national debt would be fully paid off today," leaving the federal government with a massive net surplus instead of a $40 trillion debt load. [1, 2]

 

[Crepitus]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


By rapidly buying back the long term debt investors were abandoning or not renewing and then issuing much higher interest rate, short term debt to pay for that, by enticing investors with the higher yield.

This is a disastrous way to not engage with the structural problems this Trump admin has created with Tariffs and shrinking the revenue base via tax cuts and pushing out migrant labor and causing a shrink in GDP and productivity.

This is something that will put significant direct pressure on the NEXT Potus Admin and ones that follow who will have to then deal with all this short term bonds maturing and redeeming.

The long term debt was always a big problem for future generations, but this short term debt (replacing the mortgage with credit cards) is just so much worse.

.

Treasury Cannot and Should Not Engineer Bond Prices​

Financing a Long-Term Asset with Short-Term Debt​

 

[Crepitus]

Trump and Biden added $20 trillion to the national debt in less than 10 years. That's half of US debt by only 2 potus.

It's actually only 10 years and tRump was president for 6 of them.

 

[goat]

It's actually only 10 years and tRump was president for 6 of them.

Corporate debt is said to be $12 trillion. I know it's a lot higher than that.

Household debt is $20 trillion. Add that to $40 trillion national debt and it is closer to $72 trillion US debt. This was all done in 19 years while we squabbled in Cyberia.

 

[Nordberg]

Don't kid yourself. Obama increase spending on the Afghan war even though it was already lost.
Obama ran out of bombs on Yemen and Syria and was running weapons from Benghazi.
Obama bailed out Wall Street while foreclosing on 10 million family homes.
Obama started an endless supply of QE to billionaire speculators who were way over leveraged.

Genocide Joe started 2 wars yet dems said nothing about it. How much do you think the covid scam added to the debt? There is no difference between Obama, Biden, and Trump.

Obama did not want to bail out investors. Bankers refused to help him avoid a potential second Great Depression if he jailed or charged the bankers responsible. It was a perilous time for America and Obama had to make concessions.

 

[goat]

Obama did not want to bail out investors. Bankers refused to help him avoid a potential second Great Depression if he jailed or charged the bankers responsible. It was a perilous time for America and Obama had to make concessions.

If Obama bailed out the homeowners, all that money would've trickled up. That's economics 101.

 

[QP!]

If Obama bailed out the homeowners, all that money would've trickled up. That's economics 101.

i've been the most critical of Obama on that before i saw it wrote any place else.

The market WAS suffering a liquidity crisis so Obama was correct to act.

But providing the exact same amount of liquidity in the form of mortgage and credit card credits directly to taxpayers would have helped far more addressing the following issues :

- Most of that money would have ended up in State Banks helping shore them up while allowing 'too big to fail banks' to diminish
- this would have stemmed some of the desperation home spiral sales that happened thus diminishing that secondary crisis where forced sales, created falling home prices, created more forced sales, etc
- all the money would have been instantly deployed back into the market instead of some going to big Wall Street exec bonuses