Us Hits $38t in Debt. Fastest Accumulation of $1t Outside Pandemic
Posted2 months agoActive2 months ago
apnews.comOtherstoryHigh profile
heatednegative
Debate
85/100
Us National DebtFiscal PolicyGovernment Spending
Key topics
Us National Debt
Fiscal Policy
Government Spending
The US has reached $38 trillion in debt, with the fastest accumulation of $1 trillion outside of the pandemic, sparking debate on fiscal responsibility and the consequences of continued borrowing.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
23m
Peak period
141
0-12h
Avg / period
32
Comment distribution160 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 23, 2025 at 11:03 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 23, 2025 at 11:26 AM EDT
23m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
141 comments in 0-12h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 28, 2025 at 9:25 AM EDT
2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45682671Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 8:23:06 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
All your base are belong to US
But still, bravo
Probably, but for sobering reasons, maybe less so than in the past, because because 50% of US consumer spending is by the top 10%, and the top 10% is far less dependent on credit for their spending.
A society where there is a more balanced distribution of spending power would be more affected by a consumer credit collapse, but the treasuries of such a society might be more desirable anyways.
The top decile of the wealth distribution is around $1M net worth.
The people doing the borrow-for-spending-against-non-housing-assets-as-collateral are beyond the top .01%. While they are also spending whales, they are able to negotiate far more favorable rates than the rest of the top 10%, whose spending is mostly income-driven.
Day gig is at a firm that extends consumer credit, so I keep an eye on cost of capital tracking, monitoring the spread, etc. Any debt packaged and sold into debt markets (asset backed securities) competes against treasuries from a yield (and risk premium pricing) spread perspective. Mortgages, auto loans, some credit card books, etc.
When the Fed cuts rates, your deposit account provider is going to start cutting your interest rate paid right away, but they’re going to maintain their credit rate pricing as long as possible (considering competition from other lenders) to maintain their spread and profit as long as possible. You see this with credit card interest rates, for example.
TLDR 10Y treasury sets the rate floor, broadly speaking.
https://www.marketplace.org/story/2025/10/23/why-you-should-...
I buy Treasury products for my investment portfolio sometimes.
Time would be better spent talking about other issues, but national debt is a simple number politicians can complain about rather than talking about the more complex issues that really impact the rest of us.
Often politicians will try to shrink or control the debt without deeply investiagting the true causes, because the real causes may be politically inconvenient.
That's not really the case with a nation-state with sovereign control over their own monetary policy. In that case, currency works a lot more like an MMO currency like RuneScape gold. The government gets to set up sources (government spending, killing goblins), and sinks (taxes, buying stuff from in-game shops), with the risk of screwing up the balance being a shift in perception of value of the currency. Just like how I never need to worry that RuneScape will run out of gold, and the next goblin I kill won't drop any, the government can't run out of money. It can always print more. Taxes are used to induce a demand for the currency (since you need to pay your taxes in USD), creating a flow of money through the economy. Tax too much, or print too little, and you make people expect the money to gain value, and shrink the value proposition of investment compared to hoarding money. Print too much, or tax too little and you end up with money piling up in some subset of your participant's balance sheets, shifting people's expectation to the money being worth less in the future, leading to a devaluation of said currency (since the people with a bunch of money are willing to spend more of it for the same good).
The key is that whole "expectation of future value" element, which differentiates government debt from private debt. It's a much looser coupling than "I have 45 cents in my bank account, I can't buy groceries this month". A currency can be useful, valuable, and perfectly suitable even if it loses a couple percent of its value every year, forever. That would reflect as a forever increasing national debt, but it's fine, because national debt doesn't matter.
Unexpected changes to the rate of change of the national debt is the thing that matters, and even then only indirectly, by way of the public perception of the value of the currency, which leads to the inflation/deflation rate.
At the end of the day, in the world of fiat currency, taxes and spending are not intrinsically linked. They're mediated by public perception of the value of the currency, which can be sensitive to unexpected speed ups of the money printers, but is frankly unaffected by the normal rate.
- The Federal Reserve
- Intergovernmental holdings
- Mutual Funds
- state and local gov
- Pension funds
- Insurance companies
- Deposit insurance
- Foreign holdings of all types
Does this mean the FDIC's Deposit Insurance Fund?
(a default on the debt, any of it, would be an extinction level event for the global financial services industry and then most real US industries in the following weeks)
Also foreign governments and central banks will have holdings. Tether (the cryptocoin) is largely backed by US treasuries.
But the largest single holder is actually the U.S. federal government itself, which holds about 20% of the total debt as “intragovernmental” debt. These are real, legally binding financial obligations to federal agencies, most famously to Social Security.
So who owns the obligations? Many individuals and foreign states.
So who's that, it doesn't give any sense of proportion.
It's complicated as one can never be sure how a bond get wrapped into another product sold in foreign, and often obscurely complex structures. But we do have some estimated data points.
Contrary to another comment pointing at China, this country accounts only for tiny fraction of the overall amount credited.
For example, the UK, Japan, individually own more U.S bonds than China.
Anyhow they each represent around 1 trillion, so where is the rest coming from?
The majority of creditors in value are U.S entities and U.S individuals.
Some may recall a bank in California that went bankrupt a year or two ago. Unveiling a financial gig certain institutions enjoy doing: accumulate bonds as it always pays.
A few references: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/20-countries-holding-most-us...
https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-gross-debt-versus-debt-held-p...
Edit: another comment nicely broke down list of which U.S entities own what.
In theory no, but when old debt matures, it is often paid by issuing newer debt that is financed at the higher rate. So in practice inflation does increase the dollar amount owned unless the government actively reduces the debt.
[1] https://brrr.money/
Taco bell seems ridiculous but the alternative is that they eat cat food.
tldr - the reason that going after the poor is always the answer is that it's the rich who are both asking and answering the question.
The wealthy boomers who own multi-million dollar California track homes and don’t pay taxes because of prop 13, who are consuming millions on quasi-necessary medical procedures because they partied too hard in the 70s, gorged on trans fats in the 80s, smoked drank and didn’t go for walks, that’s where entitlement reform should start. But those are the base of one, maybe both parties and will vote out anyone that refuses to subsidize their ozempic and knee surgeries. They will even vote to reduce democracy by gerrymandering the state to block third party candidates and ensure nobody can come for their unnecessary health care costs and other ballooning entitlements.
Most corporations don't make extraordinary profits. They make enough to stay in business, and if you tax them too heavily they will either raise prices or just close. So higher corporate taxes will ultimately depress business and be paid for by the consumer.
A few corporations certainly do make a lot of profit, and various "windfall profit" or "excess profit" taxes have been tried, but that's more about politicians trying to earn favor than anything that makes a practical difference.
Spending is the thing that's out of control, so that's where the problem must be attacked.
Corporate taxes are levied on profit, not revenue. Raising corporate taxes would not cause any businesses to fail. And businesses can only raise prices if the market will bear those higher prices. Prices are set based on what customers will pay, not on what profit margin the company wants.
It is a little more nuanced than that. Raising corporate taxes can make it harder for businesses to succeed if it sharply reduces after-tax profits or discourages investment. OTOH, if done well, the incremental tax revenue can create a healthier business environment overall.
How different would the world have been if either of the two "grand bargins" that Boehner started, and then Obama torpedo'd last minute (in the first example) or the second one (which biden as VP torpedo'd) happened? No rise of the tea party, working bipartisan arrangement on spending?
Shit matters.
Even SNAP only cost 100 billion last year, and its net effect on revenue was probably positive, though these things are hard to measure in isolation: https://www.cbpp.org/blog/snap-food-assistance-is-a-sound-in...
(Because humans are bad at large numbers: 100 billion / 38 trillion is 0.2%, or alternatively 38T represents 380 years of SNAP at 2024 levels.)
Letting 70M+ Americans, many of which are children, go hungry is good for the country because it saves money. And if they don't die from malnutrition, don't worry, we're going to save even more by cutting their health coverage, and eventually social security, a program that people paid into their entire lives.
Take a step back...do you believe these 70M+ people are just lazy, inept, ...? Do they deserve to suffer, especially the children? What are we buying with their suffering? A reduction in spending? A tax break for the wealthy? Is this the only solution?
What if we were to create a real national healthcare system which cared for everyone at a vastly lower cost? That would also save money AND reduce suffering. Seems like a net win.
But that won't get us all the way there, so what else can we do? Everyone knows the answer, increase taxes on the wealthy. Top marginal tax rate used to be 90% (1950-1964), so perhaps there's some wiggle room between that and today's 37%.
Historical Tax rates: https://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2012/12/1.png
This country needs a big old heaping of empathy and compassion.
I'll agree that eliminating SNAP is an extreme measure that in the overall picture saves little (unlike modest cuts to SS and Medicare) but consider that 20% of Americans are to some measure dependent on SNAP. There's something wrong with that in my view.
but what interpretation leads to "therefore SNAP is the problem" ? compared to land management or anti-trust, etc
as a policy alternative, we could say, ban the exports of alfalfa until the SNAP usage is 5%, and split up cisco into 2000 different food distribution companies.
funding for social spending i think is a very strong chesterton's fence, in that the program was introduced to mitigate a problem. getting rid of the mitigation isnt going to get rid of the underlying problem
One day we'll look back and wish we had the self-control to both impose austerity measures to get the spending under control and the foresight to spend wisely on long term functions like infrastructure.
Until then it's business as usual from both political parties.
Letting people starve is a better solution than letting them drink soda and potentially develop diabetes over the long term? Preposterous. I don't understand why the common sentiment is that everyone who uses SNAP must enter into a contract with the state to lose weight and only eat heads of iceberg lettuce, lest they be labeled leeches.
But such regulations are easily subverted and ultimately may not make a lot of difference. If people want to live on Dr. Pepper and cigarettes they will find a way to do that.
people shouldnt be prevented from ever drinking doctor pepper because they are poor.
snap should reclaim their money from dr pepper if peopleare spending too much on it, or they should be pushed on making doctor pepper healthier if thats what people are spending snap money on.
Yes, the rich would whine about it and raise a fuss, but ultimately their lives would not actually change for the worse.
Whereas taking away SNAP and other entitlements would demonstrably make the lives of millions of people significantly worse.
Could this be how he stops the election, or stops the vote count?
His options are start a major war, default on the debt, ?
Hold onto your hats
Not that they started it or want it to continue, and not that I think Zelenski is anything other than a hero, but the case in point is Ukraine not holding elections since the war started.
When Zelenski told trump there have been no elections during the war trump, on camera, was delighted and said “very good”.
You castrate the media, and take control of major vehicles to tilt the balance in your favour in quasi-sham elections; accumulate power in the executive while keeping the remaining seats of power under the thumb of the branch: legislative gets installed with sycophants/acolytes, judiciary power is tamed/dimished and regime-adjacent judges installed.
If you play this well you keep getting elected when elections happen and slowly twists more the sword into all democratic institutions.
[0] https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-new-competit...
The Federal bits of the US being strong (and indeed all institutional strength) is not a law of nature, and people who think it is a law of nature are the most likely to blindly run it into the ground while fighting each other to wield that strength.
But right now, the Federal bits are stronger than any state.
a) update the valuation of their assets, recognizing that they are instantly insolvent, cease trading, and lock their doors;
b) continue operating "illegally" in the hope that some sort of order will materialize
Option (a) causes all the non-cash economy in the US to stop functioning. The gold and silver bugs are, briefly, ecstatic - this is their moment. Everyone else who would rely on their debit or credit cards to buy food and gasoline, less so. The legal order that is supposed to maintain things like elections theoretically remains in place, but the rapid collapse in public order forces states to step in. You have elections to some thing called the "United States", but when most of its money has been rendered worthless, does it really exist any more? Essentially this is the "prepper" fantasy.
I am not saying it would be pretty or desirable, but by reading what happened to countries can give a notion.
It would eliminate the notion of the USD as the basis of foreign trade across the world, almost all of the finance system is supported by the USD being the safest investment available.
Firing Jerome Powell and pushing rates lower, in spite of reality on the ground, is effectively a form of soft default. (That, plus the laundry list of other things, which is too long to fit into a single HN comment)
The US will never stop paying its obligations. But driving away investment by breaking promises abroad and eroding political stability at home very much will cause the trust in the USD as an ongoing institution to evaporate. Sure, the US still pays its bonds on time in USD, but what is USD worth when the US cannot honor its trade obligations, cannot honor its diplomatic obligations, cannot be relied on as a stable partner?
It will be very scary when the US stops being the dominant financial system. So much of the US political economy (and more fundamentally, our way of life) depends on it.
I understand the self-interested desire for the ultra wealthy to have lower taxes on an individual level, but yet I still don't understand how they are perpetually blind to the fact that whatever the release valve for the historic and still growing massive wealth inequality we have takes, it won't be great for them either in the long term.
Sure its nice for them to make asset grabs during economic downturns, but eventually there's always a tipping point where things go upside down chaotic and I don't feel like we are that far away from it now.
I don't. It seems like mental illness to me
I meant I understand it in the sense that to get that wealthy in the first place you have to have a special kind of self-interested sociopathy, so in that regard I understand their desire. Not that I agree with it.
It's up to policy makers (i.e. government when it comes to taxation) to structure the system to mitigate the inherent self-interest that people have. Obviously that's easier said than done when the ultra-rich buy off the politicians, but human nature just is what it is.
I don’t. They have tens of millions to billions. What more do they want? Three yachts instead of two? A higher score than some other rich douchebag destroying lives for fun?
I mean, yeah, I think this is mostly it. Its gamification.
At the top level they all have more wealth than they could ever possibly use, even accounting for many generations of offspring.
Attempting to, and might get away with it for a while.
But I suspect next time there is an inevitable "equal but opposite reaction" the guillotine plans will be optimized using LLMs with shared open sourced designs.
(And in the current political environment, I think I should clarify this isn't me threatening violence -- I don't want violence. It is me recognizing that history "rhymes" while the rhyming patterns tend to happen on a faster and faster pace)
No, the thing is to have a yacht with a yacht for a dinghy. And that comes with a helicopter.
Once you get that wealthy the money is more of a disk measuring contest. There is no productive way for one person to really use money of that magnitude, the best they can do is dump it into stocks, bonds, real-estate, etc..., but nothing that really moves the economy. It's a big failure from an economic standpoint. Lots of "dead" money not being productively used.
Agreed on the insanity and it seems to be getting worse over time.
I personally think its due to malignant narcissism bumping up into the (subconscious) midlife realization that there is no chance their theoretical singularity god will arrive in time to make them immortal.
Sorry bro(ligarch)s, you're all going to end up as worm food just like the rest of us. There isn't any amount of underground concrete bunker wall thickness that is going to change that.
The members of the billionaire class with any foresight are making a calculated bet that they will be in control of sufficient technological measures to suppress any kind of mass uprising by the populace. Look at all the resources going to Anduril and Palantir. Foucault's boomerang is on its way back towards the US populace right now.
That said, even that cadre far overestimates what technology can do. Adaptation is a fundamental pillar of the human condition.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly17834524o
My view with all that in mind is that spending has gone up quite a bit. Overall tax revenue has stayed remarkably consistent and the tax system is progressive (i.e. if you make more you pay more). Is it progressive enough? I don't know. What percent of the budget should that top 10% (or top 1%) be paying? 20%? 30%?
At the end of the day though getting 20% of GDP in to the Federal government as tax has historically been a heavy lift. If you get a government that's willing to vote to do that then I would be that that you will soon find new one that's willing to vote not to do that.
That said getting spending in the range has the same problem.
At some point though it seems inevitable that one (or both?) of those statements will prove to be untrue.
https://ticdata.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-cent...
That should pretty much tell you everything.
The closest they ever came to actually caring about government was with Musk who went in and actually started (illegally) ripping shit out. But the things he ripped out were inconsequential things that conservatives didn't like, and he didn't even make a dent in the actual budget. All of the things that Musk got rid of were congressionally appropriated and could have easily been congressionally (i.e. legally) de-appropriated accordingly and it supposedly would be easy for them to do with majority control over the house, senate, executive, and judiciary...but they didn't do it, because they don't actually want to cut the budget.
Eh, I would say its well-known in deficit circles that all politicians (intellectually) desire to balance the budget, but it is basically impossible. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, and debt servicing are such large pieces of the debt pie that the entirety of discretionary spending makes basically no impact in balancing the budget. These are de-facto untouchable obligations because too many people's lives depend on them and any party that enacts austerity will be swept out of office. Neither party will increase taxes on themselves (the rich) and taxing the middle/poor guarantees you lose the next election. The only path forward in the U.S. is basically kicking the can down the road until it implodes like so many other high debt-load western nations before them.
Outside of retirees, much of the social safety net is funded at the State level. There is a wide variance in the benefits and quality of the social safety net across States.
Oof
The reason for the quotes is because that's an incomplete picture since various things can affect the debt without being noted in the annual deficit. For instance some programs are considered off-budget, there's various accounting restructuring, and so on. If you simply look at the total debt it has increased every year (again since at least 1970) with the only exception being 1999 to 2000 depending on when you measure it. If you look end of year vs end of year (as opposed to fiscal year), it decreased by a few billion dollars, and that was the only time.
[1] - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
But no one in politics won't do that.
159 more comments available on Hacker News