US national debt surges past $39 Trillion (apnews.com)

by Betelbuddy 154 comments 104 points
Read article View on HN

154 comments

[−] cj 58d ago
The Democratic party would do well if they rebranded as socially progressive and fiscally conservative.
[−] dietr1ch 58d ago
In the current world a rock would do fine in an election,

- Won't start a war

- Won't speak like a 5yo kid

- Won't run around and desert you

[−] orwin 58d ago
30% of the people who voted in the last election fully agree with trump and his Iran war, his policies, and his pardons.
[−] wormius 58d ago
I'm basically at the point I'm voting for Vermin Supreme this time.
[−] disqard 58d ago
...as you should, because if you don't, the wrong lizard might be in charge!
[−] _DeadFred_ 58d ago
The Republican policy has been to starve the beast for 40 years. They are willing to bury the country in unsustainable levels of debt in order to force their agenda for government because they can't reach their goal electorally. They care more about that goal than the financial health of the nation or what the impacts of destroying the financial health is on all of us. They would rather intentionally make us too broke to function so that we can't afford government than have us rich but with a functional government. This has been their publicly stated policy for 40 years.
[−] SimianSci 58d ago
The Republican party is wholly a party for the Rich and wealthy. All other claims to the contrary are attempts to deceive people that this is not the case.
[−] babypuncher 58d ago
Fiscal conservatism is a lie, Republicans have consistently contributed far more to the debt than Democrats, at least during my lifetime.
[−] Retric 58d ago
I rarely hear Republicans actually call themselves fiscally conservative.

It seems more like an abandoned stance than a lie at this point.

[−] 0cf8612b2e1e 58d ago
Well, you occasionally hear some chest thumping from Republicans about being “deficit hawks”. Fairly sure they all voted for the latest tax cuts.
[−] cosmicgadget 58d ago
Because raising taxes was never part of their deficit reduction strategy. Not that it matters, being fiscally conservative was never an honestly held belief but simply a campaign slogan.
[−] babypuncher 51d ago
Raising taxes was never part of their deficit reduction strategy, sure. But we're talking about the fact that they cut taxes. You can't fix a deficit by reducing income.
[−] tastyface 57d ago
Did you somehow miss the marketing spiel (propaganda) for DOGE??
[−] lowbloodsugar 58d ago
If you look at national debt, the Democratic Party is the fiscally conservative party. Yet you believe the opposite. Propaganda works!
[−] mcphage 58d ago

> socially progressive and fiscally conservative

How about “socially progressive and fiscally effective”?

[−] trgn 58d ago
that electorate doesnt exist in two party system.
[−] Alupis 58d ago
Agreed, unfortunately. The amount of people that actually care about the national debt is near zero in reality, despite many stating otherwise.

When their party of choice comes into power, it's always "spend, spend, spend" - how else do you do all the things you want to do while in power? Then the table turns and they pretend to care while the other party takes a turn.

Round and round we go, deeper and deeper in debt, spending like a there's no tomorrow.

[−] jerlam 58d ago
It would be an easy strategy to defeat - the two biggest Democratic states, California and New York, are close to the top in terms of cost of living. I know fiscally conservative doesn't mean "cheap to live" but most people see them as the same.
[−] dmitrygr 58d ago
Would that not require them to ... support fiscally conservative actions, which would lose them a large part of their voting bloc?
[−] guelo 58d ago
The media environment is so right wing (yes really) that Democrats don't get the credit for that kind of thing while Republicans don't get the blame for absolute ransacking of the country.
[−] triceratops 58d ago
Isn't that what it already is?
[−] throwawaysleep 58d ago
Fiscal conservatism only exists as an ideology when paired with hurting brown people. It does not exist as a meaningful political camp otherwise.

There is a reason that fiscal conservatives spend all their time on food stamps, environmental regulations, and a few random research projects and not even examining any of the top four costs that make up the overwhelming bulk of US spending.

[−] CodingJeebus 58d ago
This is basically how the Democratic party is trying to operate now and it's not working. They've been trying to cater to moderate Republicans who became disillusioned with Trump and it's gotten them very little in the last decade.
[−] 6stringmerc 58d ago
Rebranding does not fix rot.

See also: X, Meta, Blackwater…

[−] Macha 58d ago
Is this not theoretically the libertarian party? (Of course in reality it’s often the Republican-lite party). It hasn’t proven to be a winning strategy
[−] legitster 58d ago
Government debt gets resolved eventually through inflation. There's never a point where we have to "pay it all back" and get the debt down to zero. We just end up paying of a $1 loan with a dollar that's worth only 50c.

So there's never a particular point that it "comes back to bite us" - if anything, the "bite" is happening already right now for all of us. Inflation is a form of taxation on currency. It's less like credit card debt and more like wage garnishing.

It's also worth pointing out that young people are less affected by inflation than old - retirees and people with savings. Inflation is good for people in debt. So it's not so much your children you have to worry about with today's debt level so much as it is yourself.

[−] myrmidon 58d ago
As GDP percentage, only two countries are higher: Italy and Greece (edit: and Japan).

Public debt is a significant political talking point in both cases (and even in Germany, with a much lower debt percentage).

The current US administration (and the last republicans in general) did an excellent job in pretending to be the ones fighting public debt when they are actually exacerbating it; I'm curious if there is gonna be a reckoning at some point.

[−] bawolff 58d ago
So at what point does us bond ratings go down and cost of borrowing becomes problematic?

I know us is buyoed by the petrodollar, but surely that only goes so far.

[−] rconti 58d ago

> The Government Accountability Office outlines some of the impact of rising government debt on Americans

Well, we found another agency that won't last much longer in this administration...

[−] christophilus 58d ago
Compounding working the way it always does. This won’t stop until it breaks.
[−] StoneAndSky 57d ago
I will never forget, and neither should you, that the last time we had a budget surplus, instead of doing _anything_ useful with it, the Republicans decided the best thing to do was to send everyone a check in the mail.

Among the useful suggestions of what to do with it, besides pay down the debt: Keep a slush fund in case of an unexpected war. (This was a few weeks before 9/11.)

[−] spankalee 58d ago
This is a good time to share this article again:

Isn’t it Time to Stop Calling it “The National Debt”? - https://evonomics.com/isnt-time-stop-calling-national-debt/

[−] xnx 58d ago
For some context: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

That chart doesn't include WWII, which might be the only time that comes close.

[−] impure 58d ago
Apparently the debt is keeping the Fed from raising interest rates as much as they did in 1979 when a similar crisis happened. Raising interest rates would increase the debt servicing costs pushing the US into a debt crisis.
[−] wnevets 58d ago
I'm sort of surprised to see this on the HN front page. Typically the US national debt is only a mainstream topic of discourse when there isn't a Republican in office.
[−] SilverElfin 58d ago
[−] outside2344 58d ago
Trump has added $4T to the debt in one year:

From https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/d...

3/19/2025 $36,214,467,819,348.16. --> 3/17/2026 $39,016,762,910,245.14

Yet strangely all Republicans are silent

[−] kylehotchkiss 58d ago
What's $200 billion more gonna hurt :')
[−] krapp 58d ago
Uh oh. Looks like we're gonna have to cut spending on science, regulation, infrastructure and social programs even more.
[−] LightBug1 58d ago
How that's ole' DOGE horseshit coming along?

Are you feeling those tremendous efficiency gains yet?

[−] drcongo 58d ago
It's a good job Elon Musk and his friends sacked all those governement workers, otherwise it would have been $39.0000001 trillion.
[−] jawns 58d ago
Economists often say that the national debt isn't analogous to consumer debt, because the US has a number of means to address it that the average consumer does not have, including the ability to print money.

And while that's true ... perhaps we as citizens and taxpayers would be better off ignoring that technicality and treating this debt as more like consumer debt.

Eventually, it's going to come back to bite us or our children, and we need to be willing to make some hard choices now to avoid having to make even harder choices later.

[−] pestatije 58d ago
thats roughly $100 grand per head
[−] Helloworldboy 58d ago
[dead]
[−] 6stringmerc 58d ago
…add on another $1T for the student loans that will never be repaid. Those aren’t counted? There’s a shocker. Mr. Market lost his Marker up his ass a long time ago y’all. Plan accordingly.
[−] baal80spam 58d ago
It's just a number.
[−] jghn 58d ago
Kinda funny how in some 4 year periods these sorts of headlines are treated as existential crises, whereas in other 4 year periods they are not.