Nothing exclusive simply tracking FY 2018 debt progress

Is this the path to greater prosperity for all?

FY 2017 ended on 09/29/2017 with our government reporting a total debt of $20,244,900,016,053.51

FY 2016 ended on 09/30/2016 with our government reporting a total debt of $19,573,444,713,936.79

Therefore government spent $671,455,302,116.72 more than the revenue it acquired.
The total population September 2017 as provided by the St Louis Fed was 326,001,000 indicating that government has added the equivalent of $2,059.67 of debt per member of the population by the end of FY 2017.

FY 1988 ended with a debt of $2,602,337,712,041.16 and a debt interest payment of $214,145,028,847.73 or about 8.23%
FY 1998 ended with a debt of $5,526,193,008,897.62 and a debt interest payment of $363,823,722,920.26 or about 6.58% (10 years later)
FY 2008 ended with a debt of $10,024,724,896,912.50 and a debt interest payment of $451,154,049,950.63 or about 4.50% (10 years later)
FY 2017 ended with a debt of $20,244,900,016,053.50 and a debt interest payment of $458,542,287,311.80 or about 2.26% (9 years later)
FY 2018 ends with a debt of $??? and a debt interest payment of $??? at ???% interest rate (10 years later)

With our current debt, a 0.0025% interest rate increase would result in a $50,612,250,040.13 additional interest payment.
Using the current average debt interest rate 2.26%, each additional $100B of debt would add $2.26B more interest to be paid.

FY 2018 Mo 01 debt now $20,442,473,549,889.39 a monthly increase of $197,573,533,835.88

 

... 'another day older, an' deeper in debt'...

Federal Debt Climbed $198 Billion in October
November 2, 2017 | The federal debt climbed $197,573,533,835.88 in October, the first month of fiscal 2018.

See also:

GOP Tax Bill Slashes Size of Deductible Home Mortgage by 50%
November 2, 2017 | The tax reform bill that the House Ways and Means Committee released today slashes in half the size of a mortgage that qualifies for the mortgage-interest deduction from federal income taxes.

Related:

Gallup: Congress Approval Rating is 13%
November 2, 2017 | Although President Donald Trump's approval rating is at 35%, he is head and shoulders above Congress, which has an approval rating of only 13%, according to a Gallup survey. Congress had a historic low approval rating of 9% in 2013, when Democrats dominated the Senate, Republicans ran the House, and Barack Obama was in the White House.

 

Republicans only care about defecit when Democrats are in office.

 

That's why we should only have democrat presidents. And, perhaps, a republican congress.

 

Well perhaps I should rephrase and say they only pretend to care when a Democrat is President. When a Republican is President they don't even pretend to care.

 

I call them spend and spend republicans.

As opposed to tax and spend democrats.

 

That definitly come out on the side of the Democrats. If you are going to spend more you should tax more. And if you are going to spend less you should still not cut taxes in order to make progress in reducing the deficit .

 

No such simple relationship exists. It depends on macroeconomic conditions after all. A balanced budget multiplier is not necessarily sufficient to stop long term problems (such as the destruction of human capital from involuntary unemployment)

 

Sorry but babble not accepted here.

 

Sorry, that's basic economics. You never heard of Keynes?

 

Yes. But your third grade knowledge doesn't impress.

 

I've noticed you fellows get properly churlish when asked about Economics. Your position is alien to economics sense. There is no debate in that. You can keyboard warrior as much as you want.

 

You can pretend knowledge as much as you want. And perhaps someday you may actually demonstrate something past a first grade education.

 

I'm happy to help you along; I'm nice like that. Which bit of the following couldn't you understand?: A balanced budget multiplier is not necessarily sufficient to stop long term problems (such as the destruction of human capital from involuntary unemployment)

 

Babble is good. Government taxes versus employment has nothing to do with anything.

 

Does that mean you start from a position of not knowing economics at all? The balanced budget multiplier refers to how limited action reduces control of the economy (making a mockery of your original comment). Now we know that Keynesianism demands more fiscally active policies. So why did I refer to the destruction of human capital? That refers to how, if human skills aren't used, they become irrelevant. Skills need to be used to ensure their relevance. This is well known, with for example hysteresis analysis into unemployment.

The problem is straight forward. You made ignorant comment. When told of that ignorance, you strike out. Fair enough. But please learn.

 

You just keep babbling. No problem but do not expect us to be impressed. IF you actually have an idea post it. But just repeating silliness fools no one.

 

You seem to think, when given economic comment, you can call it babble. You of course are free to go with such silliness, but that will only just lead to more ignorant comments like "if you are going to spend more you should tax more"

 

Sorry but you don't actually seem capable of thinking. So if you don't like " if you are going to spend more you should tax more" what do you think should occur if a government wants to spend more. Lets see you have a real life solution other than babbling. This should be fun to watching you try to babble your way out of actually having an idea.

 

I love how you think attacking without content works! Why do you think Keynes thought your stance was cretinous? (PS I'm not Keynes so you can't just tantrum about me)

 

So you don't actually have an idea. We are not surprised.

 

Chortle, chortle, you were asked something very simple: Why do you think Keynes thought your stance was cretinous? Don't hide now

 

Sorry but your failure to actually have an idea shouldn't be blamed on Keynes. But why are you hiding behind him. Coward perhaps. Give us your ideas if you have any which we doubt.

 

I was hoping, given time, you would have more to say. I must apologise, that clearly put too much pressure on you.

No valid economic approach says 'to spend more you need to tax more' (austerity after all was based on ideological hot air). Now you could say 'to spend more you tax more' (but that's merely a reference to Keynesian demand management)

 

Speaking of nothing to say. You missed the really obvious " to spend more you just need to increase the defecit " Or you can pretend dynamic scoring is valid.