🧵Should the goal be to fully balance the budget?
Many lawmakers are publicly declaring that goal. I love the deficit-cutting mentality, but fully balancing the budget is both unrealistic & unnecessary. The better goal would stabilize debt at current 95% of GDP. (1/12) pic.twitter.com/wwSwQb56WW

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

What matters is total debt as a %GDP - just like a family can take on more mortgage debt as its income rises, an economy can handle more debt as its GDP rises. But to keep the interest costs affordable, **debt cannot continue rising faster than income (GDP) indefinitely** (2/)

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

The US is in trouble because debt is rising faster than GDP, and headed to dangerous levels. CBO's rosiest scenario shows the debt soaring to 185% of GDP.
At a 5% interest rate that means annual interest costs of 9.25% of GDP - which would consume half of all tax revenues. (3/) pic.twitter.com/FukLgTTXTO

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

It gets worse. CBO last year assumed the average interest rate paid by Washington on its debt maxes out at 4.2% long-term. If they go to 5% or 6%, we're in very deep trouble. Interest eventually consumes 70% of 90% of all tax revenues. (4/) pic.twitter.com/L0MOnxpZS5

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

By the way, that 1946-1974 reduction in the debt from 106% to 23% of GDP was from the hot post-war economy growing much faster than budget deficits that averaged 1% of GDP. Today, GDP constrained by less labor force growth, plus entitlement costs drive spending much higher. (5/) pic.twitter.com/AQmnyu8lIl

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

Anyway, if we could stabilize the debt at the current 95% of GDP (this is debt held by the public, not including intergovernmental debt like trust funds), then interest costs roughly stabilize and a debt crisis is unlikely. This allows annual deficits of roughly 3.5% of GDP. (6/)

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

Baseline deficits rise to approx 6.5% in a decade and 11% of GDP in 30 years (with low interest rates, no more spending hikes, and the TCJA expiring).
Capping deficits at 3.5% of GDP will be difficult, but getting to balance is brutal (7/) pic.twitter.com/Ux4onoEUk4

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

The 2032 deficit is projected around $2.7 trillion with the TCJA extended. Just stabilizing the debt would allow a $1.2 trillion deficit by then. Instead, full balance would mean some combination of:
A) Eliminating 30% of all projected spending,
B) Hiking *all* taxes by 50% (8/)

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

Over 30 years, stabilizing the debt at 95% of GDP would require enacting $64 trillion in spending and tax savings. Instead, achieving permanent balance would require $114 trillion in savings. But again, we don't need full balance unless we want to reduce the debt as a %GDP (9/)

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

Even stabilizing the debt at 95% of GDP is very hard. Need a combination of tax hikes and spending cuts rising to 6% of GDP by 2040s.
My 2018 proposal gets there, but its painful, especially if protecting safety net programs and avoiding gimmicks. (10/) https://t.co/41Xx73jHPW pic.twitter.com/hQzipjfaE1

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

But once we cut spending & raise taxes to stabilize at 95% of GDP - low-hanging fruit long gone - will anyone want an additional 3.5% of GDP in tax hikes & spend cuts to achieve magical "balance?"
That's another 10% payroll tax hike, or 20% VAT, or end DOD or end Medicaid. (11/) pic.twitter.com/JPYpXZSyfd

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

I cannot imagine voters at that point being in any mood for those additional brutal spending cuts & tax hikes to achieve balance when, economically, stabilizing the debt at 95% is good enough and stabilizes the annual interest costs. That is the most realistic goal. (12/12)

— Brian Riedl 🧀 🇺🇦 (@Brian_Riedl) February 2, 2023

Aren't we at 120%? Actually, the GDP, based on a quick look is around 24T. So, that makes it roughly 127% of GDP, not including the 10T on the Federal Reserve balance sheet or the unfunded future liabilities.

The guy you're quoting is spouting off…. Probably believes in modern monetary policy…

caryking said:

---

Aren't we at 120%? Actually, the GDP, based on a quick look is around 24T. So, that makes it roughly 127% of GDP, not including the 10T on the Federal Reserve balance sheet or the unfunded future liabilities.

The guy you're quoting is spouting off…. Probably believes in modern monetary policy…

---

the guy I'm quoting is the only guy I've found that gives an actual factual based report on the federal budet. I've can't just cut spending anymore it's too far gone. And we can't just raise taxes on rich people either. So both parties are wrong.

PackFansXL said:

---

This can't be fixed with a Party first mentality. We need to set aside all this social justice garbage and get everyone focused on the reality of our debt problem. The Media has to drop cheerleading progressive ideologues and start holding their hands to the fire for all these foolish spending policies. We need a nation pulling together to fix our spending mistakes or we won't have a nation to defend.

---

One thing the government definitely shouldn't be spending our taxpayer dollars on is all these stupid vaccination ads on TV that they are STILL running non-stop... talk about a complete waste of money!

There's a lot of stupid that the govt spends on. That all still needs to curtailed for sure. But unfortunately now those spends are just a drop in a very very big bucket.

PackFansXL said:

---

This can't be fixed with a Party first mentality. We need to set aside all this social justice garbage and get everyone focused on the reality of our debt problem. The Media has to drop cheerleading progressive ideologues and start holding their hands to the fire for all these foolish spending policies. We need a nation pulling together to fix our spending mistakes or we won't have a nation to defend.

---

You are all over it. A true Republic and consistent with the10th Amendment. Decentralized GOVT with power closest to the PEOPLE.

You won’t believe how your taxpayer dollars were abused to fund left-wing Marxist indoctrination using supposed COVID relief spending.

Watch my series of questions from today’s @GOPOversight hearing. pic.twitter.com/nurOzYch7m

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) February 1, 2023

Minuscule drop in the bucket

Werewolf said:

---

PackFansXL said:

---

This can't be fixed with a Party first mentality. We need to set aside all this social justice garbage and get everyone focused on the reality of our debt problem. The Media has to drop cheerleading progressive ideologues and start holding their hands to the fire for all these foolish spending policies. We need a nation pulling together to fix our spending mistakes or we won't have a nation to defend.

---

You are all over it. A true Republic and consistent with the10th Amendment. Decentralized GOVT with power closest to the PEOPLE.

---

Trending on Twitter a few moments ago was #10th Amendment. My classmate in elementary school - early 60's near Fredricksburg, VA - was Jackie Mason. Her family had a portrait of George Mason on the wall. They were proud to be of George Mason lineage.

George Mason: A 10th Amendment kinda guy. pic.twitter.com/uVRPDvjlgQ

— TenthAmendmentCenter (@TenthAmendment) February 18, 2023

We're not a republic. We're a representative democracy.

griff17matt said:

---

We're not a republic. We're a representative democracy.

---

Check the Constitution. This list of fellas -- seemed to think they created a REPUBLIC. Ben Franklin........said "if we can keep it".......

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" - The New American

Werewolf said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

We're not a republic. We're a representative democracy.

---

Check the Constitution. This list of fellas -- seemed to think they created a REPUBLIC. Ben Franklin........said "if we can keep it".......

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" - The New American

---

Oh, okay. So you agree that we're a representative democracy then?

griff17matt said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

We're not a republic. We're a representative democracy.

---

Check the Constitution. This list of fellas -- seemed to think they created a REPUBLIC. Ben Franklin........said "if we can keep it".......

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" - The New American

---

Oh, okay. So you agree that we're a representative democracy then?

---

All the founders said a Republic. You didn't read the link with the quotes of the founders.........it appears.

We've had a few misspeaks......one originated in 1916 with the Traitor Woodrow WIlson.....which is another story

Read what Lenin and Mao said about the desirability of a democracy for conversion to socialism and then communism.

Werewolf said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

We're not a republic. We're a representative democracy.

---

Check the Constitution. This list of fellas -- seemed to think they created a REPUBLIC. Ben Franklin........said "if we can keep it".......

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" - The New American

---

Oh, okay. So you agree that we're a representative democracy then?

---

All the founders said a Republic. You didn't read the link with the quotes of the founders.........it appears.

We've had a few misspeaks......one originated in 1916 with the Traitor Woodrow WIlson.....which is another story

Read what Lenin and Mao said about the desirability of a democracy for conversion to socialism and then communism.

---

You seem to want a pure republic. I'm not sure that's ever been achieved in history, but you do you, I guess.

So you can read up on what a representative democracy is (the word democracy is in here a few times so I hope it doesn't trigger you too much):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

If they didn't want this then they kind of screwed it up by creating it as such *shrug*

verbatim..............

ARTICLE 4, SECTION 4:

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

You don't know the difference between a state and federal government? My son is in 5th grade so they're probably going over this in social studies. I could try to get you a copy of his textbook, if you want.

Would you feel better if I called it a representative republic? The word at the end doesn't really change the fact that it's not a pure republic or democracy.

griff17matt said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

Werewolf said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

We're not a republic. We're a representative democracy.

---

Check the Constitution. This list of fellas -- seemed to think they created a REPUBLIC. Ben Franklin........said "if we can keep it".......

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It" - The New American

---

Oh, okay. So you agree that we're a representative democracy then?

---

All the founders said a Republic. You didn't read the link with the quotes of the founders.........it appears.

We've had a few misspeaks......one originated in 1916 with the Traitor Woodrow WIlson.....which is another story

Read what Lenin and Mao said about the desirability of a democracy for conversion to socialism and then communism.

---

You seem to want a pure republic. I'm not sure that's ever been achieved in history, but you do you, I guess.

So you can read up on what a representative democracy is (the word democracy is in here a few times so I hope it doesn't trigger you too much):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

If they didn't want this then they kind of screwed it up by creating it as such *shrug*

---

It's not "what I want" .........it is what the founders said it was. Section 4 of Article 4

Is a Republic a represntative democracy......probably.

Here is the analogy........I'm saying that "I am an Anglo Saxon male" .............and you're insisting that "I am a human being"...........and demand that I proclaim myself to be a "human being".......rather than the "Anglo Saxon male" that I am more specifically. No further discussion warranted as far as I'm concerned.

griff17matt said:

---

You don't know the difference between a state and federal government? My son is in 5th grade so they're probably going over this in social studies. I could try to get you a copy of his textbook, if you want.

Would you feel better if I called it a representative republic? The word at the end doesn't really change the fact that it's not a pure republic or democracy.

---

I agree that we sure as he$$ don't function like a Republic.........but it is what the founders created. We the people have allowed our Republic to spin out of control. Now we're on th precipice of tyrannical govt.

Section 4 of Article 4.....read it

Werewolf said:

---

griff17matt said:

---

You don't know the difference between a state and federal government? My son is in 5th grade so they're probably going over this in social studies. I could try to get you a copy of his textbook, if you want.

Would you feel better if I called it a representative republic? The word at the end doesn't really change the fact that it's not a pure republic or democracy.

---

I agree that we sure as he$$ don't function like a Republic.........but it is what the founders created. We the people have allowed our Republic to spin out of control. Now we're on th precipice of tyrannical govt.

---

Everyone, in every country ever, is always on that precipice. It has always been that way and you can be on that precipice regardless of your political leanings. Germany fell one way and Russia fell the other.

It's why the middle is so important in every country. Those 60% keep the loony other 40% from tipping them one way or the other. We've done it well so far in this country. We'll just have to see how the middle holds up against the forces of the crazies on both sides of the spectrum.

And a Republic is decidedly NOT what the founders created. They created a representative form of government where the people are supposed to be spoken for by their elected representatives.

If this was a true republic, we'd never have another Republican president. Ever. The electoral college would be abolished since it suppresses the will of the people (while at the same time making sure the voice of the minority is heard, strange conundrum there).

A representative democracy with an electoral college is the ONLY way the minority can have a say in how their federal government is run. It is an absolutely genius mechanism to run a large country.

Listen to Jordan Peterson's interview with Tulsi Gabbard from the other day. Fascinating look inside the machine at what is REALLY corrupting this nation on BOTH SIDES. It's appalling.

I know, I know..........its what your daughter's 5th grade class is teaching. Ben Franklin ddn't get the message though.

Teaching this, teaching Critical Race Theory, 69 genders and 1619 Project........I have not doubt that is what your 5th grader is being taught nowadays. What concerns me is that 'daddy' is reading the 5th grade history book and now its gospel.

Werewolf said:

---

I know, I know..........its what your daughter's 5th grade class is teaching. Ben Franklin ddn't get the message though.

Teaching this, teaching Critical Race Theory, 69 genders and 1619 Project........I have not doubt that is what your 5th grader is being taught nowadays. What concerns me is that 'daddy' is reading the 5th grade history book and now its gospel.

---

My daughter is in 7th grade. What is "this" that they are teaching? That we vote for representatives in congress at the Federal and State levels? Would you like me to paste the words of the 1st article of the constitution for you?

Just so you know, James Madison wrote the constitution and bill of rights, not Ben Franklin. Franklin was the president of Pennsylvania at the time.

i know who primarily wrote it.......you are correct. Ben Franklin was more of the elder statesman.