File: Screenshot 2026-05-02 at 21-57-03 us-capitol.jpg (JPEG Image 1410 × 870 pixels) — Scaled (73_).png (1.0 MB)
The U.S. national debt has officially surpassed 100 percent of gross domestic product, crossing a once-unthinkable threshold and heading toward the record set after World War II.
As of March 31, publicly held debt reached $31.265 trillion while GDP over the preceding year stood at $31.216 trillion, producing a debt-to-GDP ratio of 100.2 percent. The figure climbed from 99.5 percent at the end of the last fiscal year on September 30.
https://www.wsj.com/economy/u-s-debt-tops-100-of-gdp-81c013d7 (paywalled link)
Showing all 49 replies.
>>
The federal government is spending $1.33 for every dollar it collects in revenue. Annual deficits are running near 6 percent of GDP and are projected at $1.9 trillion this year, little changed from 2025 as Republicans’ tax cuts take effect before spending cuts begin. These structural deficits will continue adding to the debt for the foreseeable future.
One in every seven dollars of federal spending now goes toward interest payments. A mere 0.1 percentage point rise in interest rates would add $379 billion in costs over the next decade.
The milestone marks a potent symbol of decades of fiscal stress. Lawmakers in both parties have expressed alarm but consistently prioritized tax cuts and spending increases with clearer short-term political benefits.
Economists warn the rising ratio consumes resources that could be used more productively elsewhere and makes the government more sensitive to interest rates. Without policy changes, the U.S. is headed toward debt levels already seen in France, Italy, Greece and Japan.
The Congressional Budget Office projects the ratio will reach 100.6 percent for the fiscal year ending September 30, exceed the post-World War II record of 106.1 percent by 2030, climb to 120 percent by 2036 and hit 175 percent by 2056 under current policies.
Cumulative deficits over the next decade are projected at $24 trillion. Stabilizing the ratio around 100 percent would require roughly $10 trillion in spending cuts and tax increases.
>>
>>
It's irrelevant at this point. It can't be reversed and the US will eventually have a civil war and balkanize. It will probably be 45-50 trillion by the time Trump leaves and the next president will put it over 65 trillion
>>
>>
>>
>>1511401
this anon is correct, and it was the result of WWII. It didnt take Truman and Ike very long to get it under control and the economy boomed, once we acted like adults and got everyone to pay for it. That's what a real country does.
>>
>>1511401
Republicans will want to decrease taxes for the rich and fund munitions factories in the Midwest to supply Israel bombs to create jobs to spur the economy, and cut back on handouts to the poor.
The Democrats Will do the munitions factory part to supply Israel ETC, and tried to create more jobs in the health industry by creating more rules and creating more middlemen.
They probably will make the a very rich 1 to 2% less rich
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1511570
>I still can't believe people are pushing that debunked shit.
You can't really debunk the Laffer curve since it's very much a real thing.
The bullshit is that we're on the right hand side of the curve in the USA when in reality we're deep into the left hand side. The tax rate would have to be like somewhere north of 70% for cutting taxes to potentially raise revenue.
>>
>>1511529
>>1511535
>>1511541
>>1511531
>only 70%
They should pay almost all of it. That is the price of owning 99% of wealth: You pay 99% of taxes. That's why the oligarchs of old didn't WANT to own 99% of wealth, they didn't want to be on the hook for all those taxes, and they didn't want to be on the hook for running 99% of society.
right now you're saying it's fine that they pay WAY LESS proportionally than you ever will in your life. But you think it's "OK" because they're paying "70%" (70% of liquid income, btw, which is almost nothing compared to their stock assets, their actual wealth).
In short eat shit retard.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1511594
>That is the price of owning 99% of wealth: You pay 99% of taxes
So, in America we tax "income" not "wealth". The top 10% carry more of their fair share. The bottom 50% pay less than 5% of all income tax.
And fyi the top 10% is people who make $187,000 or more. Which isnt actually that much.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1511663
The shill is so hilariously mindbroken that they only make sense when trying to say ridiculous things
Don't worry, I'm sure billionaires will start fleeing NY soon, instead of just saying they will and doing nothing
>>
>>1511603
>Doubles down on being an anti-semite
We get it.
Tax the rich.
>>1511619
Actually it is fiscal policy because putting all the money in the hands of a few people harms the economy.
Also you have the same mindset of blaming the poor that the conservatives in France did in 1788. How did that turn out for them?
>>
>>1511665
>I'm sure billionaires will start fleeing NY soon
Anon
>~$10 billion/year in income lost (2022 alone)
>Net out-migration of residents (especially higher earners) reduced New >York’s taxable income by about $10B annually.
>~$14 billion in high-earner income (NYC-focused estimate)
>Some estimates focused on top earners suggest roughly $14B in gross income tied to wealthy movers.
>>
>>
>>
>>1511673
They can either pay more tax or leave, nobody’s forcing them to live anywhere and there’s plenty of places in the world where you can pay basically zero tax.
If they stay in NY and pay more tax there’s two things happen; firstly they can afford it, and secondly NY will be improved by their money going towards public services
>>
>>1511675
>Projection
Classic, and yes, royalists are textbook conservatives. Why else would republicans be sucking up to the royal family of Britain, the same group the founding father fought to break away from?
>>