As a read all the calls for more spending-debt forgiveness, tax credits, child care, etc. I have to wonder if there is anyone who makes a connection between spending, debt, interest payments, deficits and inflation .
Although most of our national debt was issued when interest rates were low, that debt is quickly rolling over into a high-rate debt environment, and further borrowing continues. Without corrective action, interest costs could total more than $13 trillion over the next decade and $1.9 trillion per year by 2033.
Rising interest costs pose a growing danger and are increasingly difficult to ignore. To mitigate these costs, lawmakers should enact thoughtful and responsible fiscal reforms that limit additional borrowing, reduce inflationary pressures, push down interest rates, and support stronger economic growth. A fiscal commission can help them to design and reach agreement on such a plan.
Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
High federal debt and interest payments can have a number of negative consequences for the economy, including:
Reduced economic growth: High levels of debt can crowd out private investment, which can lead to slower economic growth. This is because the government has to compete with businesses for loans, and higher interest rates can make it more expensive for businesses to borrow money. Higher interest rates: As the federal government borrows more money, it has to pay higher interest rates to attract lenders. This can lead to higher interest rates for consumers and businesses, which can make it more expensive to buy a home, car, or start a business. Increased risk of a fiscal crisis: If the federal government is unable to pay its debts, it could lead to a fiscal crisis. This could have a devastating impact on the economy, and could lead to a recession or even a depression. Vulnerability to higher interest rates: If interest rates rise suddenly, it can make it more difficult for the government to repay its debt. This could lead to the government having to cut spending or raise taxes, which could hurt the economy. Less fiscal space to respond to emergencies and other priorities: When the government is spending a lot of money on interest payments, it has less money to spend on other priorities, such as infrastructure, education, and healthcare. This can make it difficult for the government to address important challenges and invest in the future.
In addition to these economic consequences, high federal debt can also have a number of social and political consequences. For example, the wealthy may benefit from government spending on interest payments, while the poor and middle class are more likely to be taxed to pay for those payments. High debt can also lead to political instability, as it can make it difficult for the government to make tough decisions or respond to crises.
The risks associated with high debt are real and should not be ignored.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
What is a startup business In the United States, a startup business refers to a newly established company that is typically in its early stages of development and aims to bring innovative products, services, or business models to the market.
LikeLike
A lot of differences as to what to do. I suggest there are more than two ways to reduce the debt, we could also repudiate it or inflate it under control. Both have painful effects, so we don’t consider them. At least the Federal Reserve doesn’t believe in inflation or so they say. They want a 2% range. The debt is going to stay I’m afraid. But we don’t have to keep adding to it. The annual deficit can be controlled.
Social Security and Medicare can be made self-sustaining by increased taxes. The defense budget needs to be frozen and pared back although that goes against several congress types and the military industrial complex that makes money on arms spending. I say we don’t have to be the armorer for the world outside of China and Russia. Raising taxes for the general fund is throwing gasoline on the fire. The Washington elite spend anything that comes in.
I understand that since about 1980 the tables have been tilted to favor the big money folks and it can’t be explained by the whales having all the creativity and smarts to rake in the lion’s share of the wealth. I say the casino is rigged but I don’t know exactly how it was pulled off. The point I want to make is that the whales aren’t going to let a lot of loot go to Uncle. We need to control the budget of the country and that is by reining in spending.
LikeLike
Frugal may not always be the best answer.
There are a lot of neighborhood stores and Mom and Pop grocers that make much of their income (and pay taxes) from social programs.
Walmart workers are the biggest recipients of food stamps and Medicaid in most states.
Walmart captures over a quarter (25.5%) of SNAP shoppers’ grocery dollars annually,
I have shares in Wal-Mart.*
What are you trying to do? Kill me now.
*Also in the defense industry.
LikeLike
FWIW, most of that debt is held by Americans. Either by the public, or by intergovernmental holdings, SSA, DoD, USPS, etc.
Japan is the largest outside holder at over $7 trillion, and they are more in debt than we are.
Secondly, there are still two ways to reduce the debt, reduce spending or raise taxes. We might be able to raise taxes on the middle class a tiny bit, but you can’t raise taxes on the poor. They don’t pay any, and many are net tax recipients.
Apparently that is the favored way to cut spending, though, as if social welfare programs were the cause of the problem.*
Once upon a time in America, the combined bottom half of households earned over twenty percent of total income. That was then, this is now.
*$top blaming the guy at the bottom.
LikeLike
The cause is not paying for all the promises and spending. It’s that simple and it applies to all shades of politics. All workers in Europe pay higher taxes fir their programs either various payroll and a VAT.
LikeLike
VAT schmat. All Europeans do not pay more/or if they do they are reimbursed by higher transfer. There is a net redistribution (blue line) of income. The poor are net tax recipients. Even more so than in the U.S.
Most other countries are more egalitarian both before and after taxes and transfers.*
*Since 1980. Maybe we outsmarted ourselves.
LikeLike
Yes, they have greater social programs, but they pay for them and that’s the point. The US is among the lowest taxed developed countries.
LikeLike
Amen!
Tax The Rich.
That’s where the money is. Even more so in the U.S. than in most other countries.
Everyone is unequal, but some are (much) more unequal than others.
LikeLike
If you look at the tax code, the limits of tax advantaged programs, IRMAA, isn’t that what happens? Guess we need to define rich.
LikeLike
Very interesting.
First, I don’t know IRMAA, that’s above my pay grade.
Second , there’s a lot of reading I maybe should do, but probably won’t. It seems clear that all European, and most all OECD countries have more progressive taxes (and pay higher taxes overall) and greater redistribution than the U.S.
Third, just to make it more complicated, they are all different.*
What the charts show, and what little I’ve read, seems to indicate that most countries are more equal, or less unequal, even before taxes and transfers, not just because of billionaires, but in many countries doctors, attorneys, accountants, and middle management executives, don’t earn as much as in the U.S., for better or worse. (Define “the rich”.)
Overall, and I haven’t researched it, I suspect one common denominator accounting for less inequality may be. National healthcare. How progressive or redistributive is that?
*The Flaw of Averages. Any two or more countries may have the same average distribution, but one may have more distribution to the poor, while another distributes more to the elderly.
LikeLike
IRMAA is the income based premiums for Medicare under which higher income pay 3-4 times more than standard premiums.
LikeLike
LikeLike
My definition of wealthy is someone who pays IRMAA (pay back part of the hidden government subsidy) and someone is rich if they pay 20% capital gains tax.
Mr.Quinn is like the frog in the pot of water on the stove – doesn’t realize he is in the top 7% of income in the country.
LikeLike
I can assure you I know exactly where I am and how fortunate as well.
LikeLike
Haha – two words that are polar opposites in our collective elective leaders – lawmakers …………..thoughtful and responsible.
LikeLike
Every member of Congress should be FORCED to read your article.
LikeLike
Its frightening
Sent from my iPhone
LikeLike