US Paid $853 BILLION In Interest On Its $31 TRILLION Debt In 2022 (More Than The US Defense Budget)

Confounded Interest ^ | 01/28/2023 | Anthony B. Sanders

[NWFree]

“ And who does all that “interest” go to, no one ever asks, do they.”

Presumably the bond holders

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is the $853 billion in interest payments fairly accurate?

I haven't seen that number.

During fiscal year 2022, total federal debt increased by about $2.5 trillion, with about $2.0 trillion of the increase in debt held by the public. Additionally, interest on debt held by the public increased to $497 billion in fiscal year 2022—up from $392 billion in fiscal year 2021.The primary reason for the increase in debt held by the public was the federal deficit, which was $1.4 trillion for fiscal year 2022.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105586

[Golden Eagle]

Yep, a significant portion of which, is foreign governments. Governments that often parked that money here, not because it paid good interest rates, because that hasn't been the case, but because it was considered the only place safe enough for that amount of money to be kept somewhere that could safely hold it for them.

But now, foreign desire to own our debt will be growing, rapidly, because not only is it about the only place they can safely park billions, they'll now be getting a much better return on it too, all at the expense of the average American, whose government, controlled by bankers, is saddling this all on them.

I predict US pensions will slowly begin to phase out, as they and the generations they support continue to die off, and our debt will be increasingly held by foreign governments. A sharp spike, unfortunately.

[FarCenter]

>>Bottom line, when Reagan took office in 1980, the US Government took in 517 billion dollars. In 1988 AFTER Reagans tax cut, the government took in 909 billion.

$517 B in July 1980 dollars is equal to $741 B in July 1988 dollars. So most of the increase is due to inflation. https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm

Part of the rest of the increase is due to “bracket creep”, also a result of inflation. The remainder is due to the increase in GDP, which is in part due to the fiscal stimulation, but it is a very minor effect.

[unclebankster]

Thanks

[Golden Eagle]

interest on debt held by the public increased to $497 billion in fiscal year 2022

Public debt is not all debt. That figure does not include "intergovernmental debt" per my understanding. Thanks.

[Basket_of_Deplorables]

Over 1/4 of total federal revenues go to interest. So they just toss another $$$ to friken Ukraine.

%+$#&!!!

[Toddsterpatriot]

Correct. Interest for the Trust Funds is not included.
And part of the $497 billion is earned by the Federal Reserve.

[Tilted Irish Kilt]

Prepper Ping - Is the US national debt a concern to Democrats ?
The US paid $853 billion in interest for the $31 trillion in debt in 2022
Should you be concerned ?.. Dam right you should be concerned!

James Rosen at Fox News on the exploding US debt and whether it is a problem.
I said “Yes, the sheer size of the US debt load in unsustainable and will get worse if interest rates rise.” Well, here we are!"

"The US paid $853 billion in interest for the $31 trillion in debt in 2022.
That is more than the US Defense budget in 2023.

If the Fed keeps rates at at these levels (or higher), the US we will be at $1.2 trillion to $1.5 trillion in interest paid on the debt.
The US govt collects about $4.9 trillion in taxes"

(My Comment): Still waiting in the wings is a proposed Democrat bill to forgive student loan forgiveness.
They are spending you children, and their children's children into a national debt quagmire.
Where is the accountability ?
Responsibility certainly isn't found in Washington DC
Alert your 'Congresscritters' !

[Toddsterpatriot]

Is the $853 billion in interest payments fairly accurate?

No. That guy didn't read his source material. Again.

Units: Billions of Dollars, Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=Zlkq

[Toddsterpatriot]

The US paid $853 billion in interest for the $31 trillion in debt in 2022

Wrong.

[Toddsterpatriot]

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A091RC1Q027SBEA

[Pelham]

“Baloney. If the Federal reserve collected the interest from the US Government on the national debt, and then handed it all right back to the government... they wouldn’t collect it in the first place. “

Well that’s exactly how it does work despite your belief that it’s “baloney”.

The fact that it’s news to you is an illustration of how little the general public understands what the Fed does.

The Fed is the nation’s monetary authority, not a profit making bank.

Its stock of Treaury bills and other debt is a tool used for adjusting the amount of high powered money available in the banking system.

They purchase Treasuries to add money to the banking system and they sell Treasuries to reduce the amount of loanable funds. Any money that they receive above payroll and basic expenses reverts to the US Treasury.

[Pelham]

“Also, if we get rid of the central bank, the independent treasury system or whatever they would call it, would function in much the same way as the central bank did.”

That’s an accurate prediction.

In 1907 J.P. Morgan ran the nation’s largest bank, and when the “Panic of 1907” hit Morgan acted as America’s central bank to keep the banking system from collapsing; the independent Treasury existed but it was unable to provide the liquidity to halt panic.

Morgan warned Congress that the American economy was getting too big for private banks to bail it out in a crisis, and he was the driving force for creating the National Monetary Commission.

The Aldrich–Vreeland Act of 1908 created the Commission to study the banking systems of developed countries, and in 1912 it issued its report. Ironically both political parties objected to the Commission’s report, with Woodrow Wilson openly opposing a central bank. But a lot of the report was incorporated into the banking bill of 1913 which became the Federal Reserve Act.

[Pelham]

“A drastic cut in tax rates results in far more tax REVENUE being brought in.”

What the Reagan economic team actually said was that cutting tax rates wouldn’t lose as much revenue as static analysis predicted. That economic growth would recoup a large portion of the revenue that would otherwise be lost due to applying lower rates.

And that’s what happened. It’s all detailed in Lawrence Lindsey and Martin Anderson, who played major roles in designing and implementing Reagan’s tax policy.

The Reagan program included spending cuts as well, but with Democrats in control of the House Tip O’Neill reneged on those and years of deficits resulted.

The only lowered tax rate that actually generated increased revenue for the Treasury was the capital gains tax cut, ironically passed during the Carter administration in 1978.

[DesertRhino]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCk2-QVqCck

Laffer explains it. The cut brings in more revenue by making the economy take off. Also there is a high tax and a low tax amount that will generate the same exact amount of revenue... so why would you choose the higher?

[FarCenter]

A capital gains tax cut will generate revenue because investors will bring forward the realization of capital gains in anticipation that the capital gains tax rate will be raised when party control of government changes.

[Pelham]

That’s essentially what happened with the Carter capital gains cut.

Also that rate cut was substantial enough to encourage people who hadn’t considered selling assets to take advantage of the opportunity.

In the Carter years the Republican party hadn’t endorsed the idea of cutting taxes to promote economic growth. That policy was up for grabs with a couple of prominent Democratic Senators endorsing the idea, along with a few GOP outliers. On the Democrat side IIRC it was Russell Long and Lloyd Bentson, on the GOP it was Jack Kemp and potential candidate Ronald Reagan.

[Pelham]

I’m well aware of Art Laffer and his elasticity curve. He’s counting on you not recognizing that his graph is an idealized model like all teaching aids are. You’ll notice there are no numbers attached to Laffer’s graph, because he’s never run a study to establish what they ought to be.

Laffer didn’t work for Ronald Reagan, other than being one member of an outside advisory board. He was in private practice all during the ‘80s. Larry Lindsey and Martin Anderson did work for Reagan, Lindsey being Reagan’s senior economist for tax policy.

Unlike Laffer they did have numbers to work with and they predicted that around 66% of each dollar lost through rate reduction would be recouped through economic growth. And studies run after Reaganomics went into effect verfied the accuracy of their forecast. Lindsey described one such study in The Growth Experiment and Martin Anderson relates what their program was designed to do in Revolution.

Laffer is arguably better at self promotion than economics and politics. He says that he voted twice for both Clinton and Obama. And he famously didn’t see the massive housing bubble of the Bush junior years; here is the bet that he made with Peter Schiff:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYkFYdLTTw8