[HN Gopher] US national debt reaches a record $37T, the Treasury...
___________________________________________________________________
US national debt reaches a record $37T, the Treasury Department
reports
Author : atombender
Score : 94 points
Date : 2025-08-13 18:31 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (apnews.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (apnews.com)
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://usafacts.org/government-spending/
| xnx wrote:
| It doesn't look like that chart was updated to show the 2T
| savings from DOGE. /s
| duxup wrote:
| I'm mildly surprised they were allowed to report this.
| rbanffy wrote:
| This administration isn't known for being proactive.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| Do you mind explaining what you mean? I believe some smart HN
| commenters here stated that this administration would be the
| most transparent one ever, so I'm not entirely sure where the
| surprise would come from!
| scottiebarnes wrote:
| On my reading list: Principles For Navigating Big Debt Crises by
| Ray Dalio
| bradhe wrote:
| Reported. It'll be amended soon after the statisticians get fired
| and yes-men get put in.
| tencentshill wrote:
| Current treasury head is Scott Bessent, previously of Soros
| Fund Management and Key Square Group. He's far too qualified to
| be part of this administration. Expect him gone soon.
| gausswho wrote:
| He's also the charisma and eloquence of a hamster. Perfect
| fall guy.
| duxup wrote:
| Traits shared by much of the administration.
| NomDePlum wrote:
| He's been in place since January so that suggests he's
| sticking about.
|
| During that time he's been actively campaigning for policies
| that are questionable but highly aligned with this
| administration: BBB, crypto, interest rate cuts.
|
| So qualified or not I can't see your prediction coming true.
|
| Money men on the inside of this administration are only going
| to make money, why make waves even if it makes normal
| Americans poorer. That's been happening since Reagan.
| voldacar wrote:
| Taking bets?
| OgsyedIE wrote:
| He's said on Fox Business today that on the basis of whatever
| agreements have been made in Alaska the US now considers the
| public and private holdings of its European allies + Japan to
| be part of an American sovereign wealth fund that can be
| expropriated whenever some cash is needed.
|
| Either he's lying about that or he has guaranteed a position
| as Trump's number one favourite after Lighthizer.
| Iwan-Zotow wrote:
| So Putin and Trump to agree in Alaska to loot public and
| private holdings of US European allies + Japan?
|
| And what would Putin get?
| dzink wrote:
| From his bio on wikipedia he was most successful betting
| against currencies at Soros but had little to no success with
| his own ventures.
| Terr_ wrote:
| For the visually-inclined, a graph of debt as a proportion of GDP
| [0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDGDPA188S
|
| Of course, this doesn't show projections for what the _future_
| debt will become after the Republican 's "BBB" package from a few
| months ago.
|
| [0] Yes, I know GDP is a flawed measure, but as long as its flaws
| are consistent over the years it is useful for scaling.
| the_real_cher wrote:
| What a cool graph.
|
| Interesting to see the issues that get the ire of the current
| administration like food stamps and education and foreign aid
| are minuscule line items on that visualization.
| emchammer wrote:
| It looks like it was under control for a while following World
| War II, but then from the early 1980s, it's hard for me not
| correlate the first derivative of the slope of that graph with
| presidential party.
| secabeen wrote:
| What do you specifically see? I see two big increases in
| debt, both due to shocks (the 08 financial crisis, and the
| pandemic; one under Obama, and one under Trump.). Pre 2008,
| it does look like moderate increases under Reagan/Bush1 and
| Bush 2, and flat to decrease under Clinton, is that what you
| mean?
| emchammer wrote:
| Yes, that's roughly what I see. The bottom of the Y axis on
| this graph is 30% which can be a little deceptive. It looks
| to me like Clinton and Obama had a terrible challenge in
| bringing this under control following the early 1980s and
| the 2008 financial crises and they did what they could, and
| then there is also Reaganomics. It just looks so hopeless
| because this figure is as high as it was following the war.
| Now Biff Tannen's in the White House, and he'll be knocking
| down walls. I don't think the system was meant to handle
| human greed on this scale.
| rbanffy wrote:
| > I don't think the system was meant to handle human
| greed on this scale.
|
| It was held together by decorum. There is none left.
| etchalon wrote:
| The 2008 crisis happened under Bush, not Obama. Obama was
| inaugurated on January 20th, 2009.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| Not only was Obama not inaugurated until 2009, but the
| Great Recession began in 2007, so tying it to Obama
| because it is popularly associated with 2008 and Obama
| was elected towards the end of that year is...doubly
| wrong.
| xnx wrote:
| > What do you specifically see?
|
| 1942-1945: Big increase to pay for fighting/winning a World
| War
|
| 1946-2007: More or less fiscally responsible
|
| 2008-present: War-like level of debt increase to counteract
| a down business cycle?
| Terr_ wrote:
| [delayed]
| georgemcbay wrote:
| > It looks like it was under control for a while following
| World War II, but then from the early 1980
|
| Democrats had a near solid lock on Congress from World War II
| until the early 1980s (only 2 two year sessions where they
| didn't control both chambers) and Congress hadn't abdicated
| its power of the purse.
|
| Republicans spend a lot of time branding themselves as the
| "party of fiscal responsibility", but ask yourself in what
| situations a group needs heavy branding by way of incessant
| self messaging. By every major objective measure, Republican
| control of government has been worse for the economy.
|
| And to be clear, none of this reply is meant as a defense of
| the current Democratic party which is currently (at the
| national level) leaderless and in shambles and is far too
| captured by its donor class of special interests to protect
| the interests of the American working and middle classes and
| who will be unable to regain real power until they address
| that.
| Terr_ wrote:
| [delayed]
| kamikazeturtles wrote:
| > Yes, I know GDP is a flawed measure, but as long as its flaws
| are consistent over the years it is useful for scaling.
|
| I don't think they can be considered consistent over the years.
| 20% of our GDP is healthcare and that's only going to grow as
| the population ages. I don't know what percent of the GDP is
| financial services but that'll probably also grow until we get
| something akin to 2008 again.
|
| Including healthcare and financial services in GDP figures
| feels out of place and unproductive but I'm not an economist so
| I don't know what I'm talking about.
|
| Then you have the services sector which makes you reconsider
| what the point of calculating a country's GDP is to begin with?
| epolanski wrote:
| > Including healthcare and financial services in GDP figures
| feels out of place and unproductive
|
| You reminded me of something: a nurse in San Diego sleeping
| through her entire shift is more productive than half a dozen
| nurses in many third world countries working hard, because
| the way economists measure productivity is the $/hour output.
| People doing nothing in America are much more productive than
| people doing a lot in most of the world because that is how
| we define productivity, and how the term is discussed in
| articles and papers.
|
| Doesn't matter, the same articles and papers will bring up
| that US enjoys higher productivity due to better
| technologies, etc, but since all of that makes it very hard
| to be really measured, it's always a mixture of some
| heterogeneous ideas together.
| coffeemug wrote:
| In practice third world countries are very unproductive,
| and it's immediately visible to the naked eye. Many shops
| and restaurants have half a dozen people (or more!) taking
| the order and handling the check, there are entire extended
| families manning market stalls that barely sell anything,
| cabbies just hang out all day waiting for a ride, etc. You
| might be theoretically right, but I think that's not
| actually how it works out in reality.
| epolanski wrote:
| I have made a very specific example, you extrapolated
| some other data from it.
|
| If you want a clearer comparison take Japan and tell me
| their average driver, nurse, teacher, policeman, factory
| worker, carpenter, painter, car mechanic, shop assistant,
| barista, bank clerk, etc does "less" or "less
| efficiently" than his american counter part.
|
| Because there is a huge difference in measured
| productivity between them.
|
| There might be, at times, some added productivity in US
| due to having more capital at disposal to adopt some
| technology, there might be some other benefits from being
| more risk prone in US? Sure. But that amounts for
| smallish differences and sure not for the immense gap
| measured by economic measures, which, at the end of the
| day, as explained with the initial sleeping nurse example
| is still $/hour.
| lm28469 wrote:
| It reminds me of the early days of the russian invasion when
| everyone was mocking russia for having the same gdp as spain.
| As it turns out having a small gdp doesn't mean much as long
| aas you have industries and resources.
|
| France includes illegal drug traffic and illegal prostitution
| in its gdp too
| stock_toaster wrote:
| This graph[0] is also pretty interesting.
|
| [0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYGFGDQ188S
| Terr_ wrote:
| The important difference [0] is:
|
| 1. "Gross federal debt" _includes_ the money which Congress
| borrowed from (future) Social Security recipients in order to
| pay for (current) tax-cuts and middle-east invasions and
| whatnot.
|
| 2. "Held by the public" _excludes_ that portion, focusing on
| money borrowed from individuals /companies/other-countries
| that voluntarily lent their money to the US government.
|
| So we should make our decisions based on the first one,
| _unless_ someone is plotting to screw millions of American
| taxpayers out of the money they already paid as insurance-
| premiums. :p
|
| [0] https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-gross-debt-versus-debt-
| held-p...
| jeffbee wrote:
| Bill Clinton: the GOAT.
| nickff wrote:
| The end of the Cold War (allowing reduced defense spending),
| along with a massive asset bubble (with accompanying capital
| gains tax revenue increases) did wonders for the budget.
| thuridas wrote:
| And reducing taxes made the deficit bigger
| xnx wrote:
| AKA "peace dividend"
| pstuart wrote:
| Back when the Congress was still semi-functional.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| The real scary thing ought to be how tapped out the GDP is now
| vs when the graph was low. In the 1970s and 80s there was
| plenty of room for growth. These days the women are all in the
| workforce and everything is financialized already. There's no
| "easy gains" in 2020whatevver.
| mdhb wrote:
| Just in time for captain genius, leader of the financially
| responsible party to decide that his primary goal is to make sure
| corporations and billionaires pay less tax. I'm sure that will go
| just fine.
| jleyank wrote:
| Maybe billionaires pay less tax, but companies seem to be
| taking it in the shorts from tariffs. Unless, of course, they
| push them onto consumers.
| etchalon wrote:
| In what period of history have companies not pushed taxes
| onto consumers?
| thuridas wrote:
| With less companies to compete you can expect it.
|
| When Donald put tariff in dishwashers even the ones made in
| US rose it's prices.
| mindslight wrote:
| I'm sure there were a lot of naive people who voted for the
| Republican party for their first time because something from
| Trump's word salad resonated with them, and they are now finding
| out what that Party is actually about. Surprise! All that whining
| about the debt was total kayfabe. Don't say we didn't try to warn
| you.
| duxup wrote:
| >they are now finding out
|
| I hope so ... I dunno.
| epolanski wrote:
| The political discourse globally has turned into a giant "us vs
| them". I'm Polish/Italian and in my countries it's similar to
| USA, we've just voted a populist troll as a president not
| because we like him but "because he's not one of those we
| despise".
|
| Marketing, data scientists and strategist have effectively
| manipulated public opinion into further polarization.
| thrance wrote:
| I think they're on board with crashing the country, as long as
| their enemies suffer more.
| the_real_cher wrote:
| Man the debt was actually going DOWN after 2020?
| BryantD wrote:
| Only as a percentage of GDP. Pandemic recovery was not cheap.
| However, yes, Biden and/or his economic advisors did a pretty
| good job of managing the economy.
| criddell wrote:
| Bill Clinton was probably the last fiscally conservative
| president we've had or will have for a long time.
| xnx wrote:
| Al Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government
| (NPR) is the exact opposite of DOGE: thoughtful, methodical,
| effective, and lasting.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Partnership_for_Reinv.
| ..
| epolanski wrote:
| Debt as % GDP, not debt per se. Stimulus provided lots of
| growth.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| How do you guys see this ending? I don't see this ending well but
| I can't imagine what happens. Seems unsustainable but nobody
| wants to deal with it.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| I've always said America is the richest third world country on
| the planet. Just like tinpot dictatorships accumulating IMF
| debt, the orange dictator in the Whitehouse will keep taking on
| debt for completely selfish political points and zero
| consideration of "the people" or the future. He's 79 years old.
| What future?
|
| In the coming decades the USA will end up just like every other
| failed state.
|
| Women will have their reproductive rights taken away so they
| can be men's property and fulfil their traditional roles and
| responsibilities.
|
| Intellectual institutions will be defunded or outright
| abolished, because they oppose the regime's messaging.
|
| The minority in charge will scapegoat some already powerless
| minority to distract the general populace. In the end, their
| own propaganda will force their hand and they'll have to enact
| some sort of dire measure, a "final solution" like
| concentration camps.
|
| Despite the dire state of the economy, military spending will
| paradoxically _increase_ and the armed forces will be
| increasingly used against citizens.
|
| ...oh.
|
| Too late, I guess.
| bithive123 wrote:
| On a long enough timeline we're all dead. In the near term,
| expect a lot of stupid decisions and huffing and puffing based
| on an ideological framing of what the national debt is.
|
| I am not an economist or finance guy, but I have noticed a lot
| of debt hysteria from people who don't seem to understand basic
| accounting. That is, one party's asset is another party's
| liability. You cannot have buying without selling, and so on.
| Your mortgage is a liability for you, but an asset for your
| bank. Your checking account is an asset for you, but a
| liability for your bank.
|
| I'm not saying the debt can grow infinitely, but clearly if
| some of that debt is held as assets by the non-government (most
| of the world including you and me) then paying off that debt
| means a wealth transfer from the non-government back to the
| government.
|
| This isn't necessarily in my interests. If the government has
| to claw those dollars back from somewhere, I'd rather them
| start with the richest people. But that doesn't happen for
| obvious reasons.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I'm not an expert but I often fear that the whole S&P500
| success is tied to govt spending.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| It's tied to GPUs. Nvidia accounts for ~8% of the S&P 500
| as of this comment.
|
| _AI is propping up the US economy_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44802916 - August 2025
| (439 comments)
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| They're definitely fueling a bubble but the S&P500 was
| already bonkers before the AI craze.
| roenxi wrote:
| > That is, one party's asset is another party's liability...
|
| The people who don't understand accounting actually seem to
| be pretty consistent on that point, because one of their
| other major complaints is inequality, ie, the people doing
| the lending have too many assets.
| epolanski wrote:
| At some point there will be a need for austerity measures and
| rising taxes, and whoever will do that will be very unpopular.
| pstuart wrote:
| DOGE already started the austerity measures, and tariffs are
| taxes, so it's already in play. Popularity may be moot
| depending upon how things play out in the next couple years.
| epolanski wrote:
| DOGE achieved little to nothing, tariffs don't compensate
| at all the raise in spending.
| no_wizard wrote:
| Badly and abruptly.
|
| As long as the US maintains the western worlds largest
| military, I don't see the government being pressured to do much
| of anything remotely close to dealing with the problem in a
| long term (and likely painful) way.
|
| If that power ever gets displaced, it'll tank the US quickly.
| As soon as the US loses its privileged status (something Trump
| is rapidly deteriorating) this becomes a serious burden that
| will require some serious policy decisions, of which most will
| be unpopular. It'll likely be cuts before tax increases,
| because even when facing the worst economic situation, neither
| party wants to pass meaningful tax increases.
|
| I think we have at least a few more decades, but if we aren't
| the western worlds de facto military there's significantly less
| reason to let this house of cards go on.
|
| We'd be better off dealing with it while we are still in a
| relatively privileged position, but no economic class wants the
| tax increases it will take just to get the debt into a
| manageable state.
|
| As for no party wanting to deal with it, that is partly true. I
| think some Democrats actually want to deal with it, because
| they're much more comfortable proposing tax increases, but they
| don't have sway in the current leadership of the party.
| jhp123 wrote:
| if the debt ever causes actual problems, e.g. we can't sell our
| treasury bonds, then our politicians will suddenly remember how
| to tax rich people.
|
| In the mean time the impossible, unsustainable, terrifying
| national debt will be used to justify benefit cuts (like the
| upcoming privatization/cut of social security when the trust
| fund runs out in 7 years)
| fzeroracer wrote:
| I think even in that situation, politicians will try and play
| ball with the rich since the majority of them are on that
| same side. But having to implement emergency austerity
| measures in this scenario would just outright blow up the US
| economy.
|
| If the wealthy donors and corporate interests were smart
| they'd take a haircut on their wealth to try and stave off
| this issue but it seems we're mostly in a loot-and-raze
| craze. Realistically I would sooner expect an American-style
| French Revolution before we see the rich grow a sense of
| self-preservation.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| The revolution wont be like the French revolution, itll be
| like the Handmaids Tale.
|
| A massive return to conservatism that manages to create a
| capitalist first theocracy loosely following American
| Calvinist principles (you have money because you are gods
| chosen, you are poor because you deserve it, for the poor
| here is this underclass to blame your problems on so that
| you dont aim your murder at the rich).
| fzeroracer wrote:
| I don't think it'll work out like that, simply because my
| fellow Americans are still too used to being towards the
| top of the economic food chain. When the poor can no
| longer afford the bare minimum necessities and the middle
| class can no longer prop up their lifestyle I think
| people will get really, really mad. Like what happened
| with the healthcare CEO but on a much larger scale.
|
| They've already been trying to sell some of the Calvanist
| dogma by trying to soften the blow of tariffs which by
| all indicators has been a massive failure of a messaging
| avenue, which is why they've moved towards trying to just
| ignore it instead.
| ImPostingOnHN wrote:
| _> I think people will get really, really mad._
|
| Many of them will get really mad at whoever the person to
| blame points the finger at, regardless how plausible. But
| what good does getting really, really mad do, against a
| government with a functioning panopticon and an effective
| monopoly on force?
|
| Until now, there has never been a time in human history
| when an oppressive government had the technical means to
| effectively surveil and control the population en masse
| in an automated fashion. It doesn't help that they have a
| monopoly on advanced weapons, lethal drones, and armed
| goons. As George Orwell put it: _" If you want a picture
| of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face --
| forever"_.
| everforward wrote:
| The possibility of taxing rich people would likely be
| factored in to the market for bonds. There's not really any
| alpha to "they could tax rich people".
|
| If we genuinely can't sell treasury bonds, even at elevated
| payouts, we're probably at a point where we will either have
| to default in the near future. Or maybe intentionally
| inflating our currency until the debt is serviceable; no idea
| which is preferable, but would be curious to hear which and
| why.
| jeffbee wrote:
| "Nobody wants to deal with it" except one of the two major
| parties which enjoys the support of the majority of the voters,
| who consistently deal with it when in power.
| biophysboy wrote:
| If it makes you feel better, the owners of US treasury
| securities also do not want a debt-fueled collapse of the
| government. They are our assets as much as they are our
| liabilities.
| trealira wrote:
| 2 years ago, Wharton predicted that the U.S. debt would be
| defaulted on in twenty years [0].
|
| > Under current policy, the United States has about 20 years
| for corrective action after which no amount of future tax
| increases or spending cuts could avoid the government
| defaulting on its debt whether explicitly or implicitly (i.e.,
| debt monetization producing significant inflation). Unlike
| technical defaults where payments are merely delayed, this
| default would be much larger and would reverberate across the
| U.S. and world economies.
|
| My prediction is that the deficit will continue to increase,
| and so the default will come by then or sooner.
|
| [0]:
| https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2023/10/6/when-...
| starchild3001 wrote:
| At this rate, the debt ceiling's going to need its own space
| program!
|
| Thank you, Mr. T, and to all those before you who let avoidable
| crises happen, handed out tax cuts to your richest friends, and
| slapped it all on the national credit card.
|
| The people of this country will be feeling your "generosity" and
| recklessness for decades to come.
|
| PS: I'd invite everyone to examine how US Debt/GDP grew
| unbounded. The biggest culprits seem to be i) financial crisis
| and ii) covid. I consider both of them avoidable, man-made
| catastoprohies. When you have reckless leaders who have no
| interest in protecting the nation from man-made and natural
| catastrophies this's what you get. And obviously, you have
| massive tax cuts added on top of financial crisis + covid
| spending, which have been completely uncalled for given our
| ginormous debt load.
|
| Then just briefly ask yourself the question: What additional
| risks are being actively ignored today? Whose job is it to
| minimize those?
| ourmandave wrote:
| It's fine. As long as the US dollar is the global currency, we
| can run the money printer as long as we want.
|
| Once that ends, well... =(
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-08-13 23:01 UTC)