US expected to send thousands more soldiers to Middle East, sources say

3/24/2026 at 9:13:33 PM

It’s just embarrassing at this point. How long will the Americans put up with this humiliation ritual?

by lwansbrough

3/24/2026 at 9:22:00 PM

As long as a significant portion of the population continues voting for it.

by cdrnsf

3/25/2026 at 1:06:45 AM

That's not why they got this.

In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on.

And they'll get wars and the same shit after they vote the other way too. Just like they got wars under Obama.

No matter who they vote, the bastards always win.

by coldtea

3/25/2026 at 2:07:26 AM

They voted for a proven con-man because they hated the idea of a black woman being president. US Racism - still going strong after 250 years...

by phlipski

3/25/2026 at 2:35:48 AM

There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party here with their dysfunctional internal infighting with just being down to racism.

by gedy

3/25/2026 at 3:00:55 AM

you should familirize yourself with Kamala Harris before saying she is not a leader - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamala_Harris

While Democratic Party could have picked another candidate, to appease comments like this (I heard this too many times by a lot of very, very smart people so I am not demeaning your comment/opinion in any way) that other candidate would have been a white male

by bdangubic

3/25/2026 at 3:14:32 AM

My point is that she was a poor candidate both times, and OP blaming this all on racism gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves. Obama would have beat Trump handily (a hypothetical), and not lost due to racism.

by gedy

3/25/2026 at 8:48:23 AM

Is it strange that Obama and Harris are each only part black, but people refer to them as being black?

If we are like “black people can do everything” (which is true, of course), why are the political figureheads of that progressive dimension only half black?

And, beyond that, the black half of each is not even African American! Harris is African Jamaican, and Obama is African African.

If anything, in retrospect the birther thing back then seems like it may have been some absurdist well poisoning on totally valid criticism of Obama’s real heritage vs the media optics of same.

I thought civil rights was for African Americans? Why have all the political figureheads African Americans have, or have been, rallied behind, not themselves been African American at all?

Quite strange.

by pfannkuchen

3/25/2026 at 8:54:23 AM

> Is it strange that Obama and Harris are each only part black, but people refer to them as being black?

Yeah - the "One Drop" PoV was beyond strange:

  The one-drop rule was a legal principle of racial classification that was prominent in the 20th-century United States. It asserted that any person with even one ancestor of Black African ancestry ("one drop" of "black blood") is considered black (Negro or colored in historical terms). It is an example of hypodescent, the automatic assignment of children of a mixed union between different socioeconomic or ethnic groups to the group with the lower status, regardless of proportion of ancestry in different groups.

~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-drop_rule

> I thought civil rights was for African Americans?

It was for the benefit of anyone sent to the back of the bus, forced to drink from other fountains, lynched, etc. That included minorities other than "classic Black" and all the people treated as Black despite not appearing black.

by defrost

3/25/2026 at 9:39:11 AM

I’m confused. From tone you seem to be comparing what I’m saying to the one drop rule as if this doesn’t support what I’m saying, but it does support what I’m saying.

Why are progressives using the one drop rule?

by pfannkuchen

3/25/2026 at 9:48:03 AM

> Why are progressives using the one drop rule?

I suspect you meant to ask "Why are people using the One Drop Rule" ? - in no way is its use exclusive to ( USofA? ) "progressives".

by defrost

3/25/2026 at 10:03:23 AM

No, I mean it is in line with the general character of conservatives to use the one drop rule, so I’m not surprised if they are using it.

Why are progressives using the one drop rule?

by pfannkuchen

3/25/2026 at 10:07:49 AM

They're not using it directly .. they're part of a wider society that has been using it less and less explicitily for hundreds of years - children speak as their paerents do.

What has faded is the habit of exactly breaking down the bloodlines of anyone of mixed blood - mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, hexadecaroon and such terms are no longer in common use in this epoch.

by defrost

3/25/2026 at 10:20:11 AM

So your theory is that the people who seem to center their worldview on racial equality (along with equality of the sexes) are subconsciously using racist language?

I mean, that’s possible, but I think a more plausible explanation is that the bulk of them are just getting riled up by media and aren’t really paying close attention to what’s going on.

by pfannkuchen

3/25/2026 at 10:25:07 AM

> So your theory is ...

No. That's clearly your framing - don't draw me into your strawman.

> but I think a more plausible explanation is that

Or, that a majority people in the USofA that are described as black in the USofA have embraced that term, own it, and have used Black Twitter etc. while those adjacent to them ( the "progressives" ? ) use that term as for the most part the "black people" are comfortable with and haven't told them to bugger off and stop using it.

As happened with "ginger" and "nagger".

by defrost

3/25/2026 at 3:45:41 AM

0% chance Obama would have beat DJT in 2024, 0!

by bdangubic

3/25/2026 at 5:20:03 AM

> gives the DNC a pass when they really need to fix themselves

I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss. Sadly, they just shuffled aparatchniks around instead of cleaning house. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was put on the House Appropriations committee after stepping down from DNC chair. Donna Brazile was rewarded with the DNC chairmanship after slipping CNN town hall questions in advance to HRC. I suspect that the self-reflection to fix themselves is just not in the DNC DNA, sadly.

America runs better when both parties are effective. Currently, neither are.

by rendall

3/25/2026 at 6:38:14 AM

> I've been saying this since 2016, when HRC ran on a campaign of calling her opponents sexists and then blaming Russia for her loss.

Trump's admin is overtly sexist, and Russian interference in the 2024 elections is extensive and well documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

You need to take a hard look at yourself and iron out all that cognitive dissonance.

by locknitpicker

3/25/2026 at 7:34:45 AM

I talked about DNC governance and accountability after the 2016 primary, not denying that Russia conducts influence operations or that sexism exists in politics. Pointing to Russian interference in 2024 does not answer whether the DNC cleaned house after 2016, and it does not change the fact that Wasserman Schultz landed on Appropriations and Brazile became interim DNC chair.

Weird that you would divert main factual points into non-sequiturs and then accuse me of cognitive dissonance. If you are free of cognitive dissonance, you can now address the points I made, not ones I did not.

by rendall

3/25/2026 at 3:31:21 AM

Milquetoast uninspiring leader should still beat someone who outright hates everything about our country, divides rather than leads, and plans to sell our institutions for scrap value while putting the proceeds in his own pocket.

Although I think the people blaming it on racism are hopeful. The real answer is that it struck a chord with people who do not want women in leadership positions.

I remember reading an article when Harris was nominated, about how it was set up to be a "historic moment". Indeed, it was.

by mindslight

3/25/2026 at 9:51:23 AM

It was historic in the sense that there were no primaries, and that she was chosen by an embittered Biden to precisely result in this outcome.

by fakedang

3/25/2026 at 5:01:06 AM

> There are plenty of excellent black women leaders - Kamala Harris was not one of those. Do not excuse the Democratic Party (...)

As a non-USian this blend of opinion just reeks of blame-shifting.

You guys have a two-party system. One proposed a candidate that continued Biden's administration. The other was this hot mess. You guys picked this hot mess over Biden's regime.

If you looked at Trump and somehow decided a second Trump administration was better than a continuation of Biden's administration, the blame lays square on you. Not on Kamala. Not on the democratic party. Not on DEI. Nothing.

Own your mistakes. Do better.

by locknitpicker

3/25/2026 at 10:46:11 AM

[dead]

by JohnnyLarue

3/25/2026 at 10:43:03 AM

[dead]

by JohnnyLarue

3/25/2026 at 7:33:32 AM

But they had voted for a black man a few elections ago?

by chistev

3/25/2026 at 10:02:42 AM

> And they'll get wars and the same shit after they vote the other way too

Eh?

Are you seriously comparing the disaster that is Mango Mussolini to the likes of (practically any) former president of the USA?

My friend, if all candidates are crap, you vote for the one that will do least harm. And then look at reforming a political system which leaves voters with such a poor choice.

by GJim

3/25/2026 at 10:23:42 AM

> In fact they precisely voted someone promising no more wars, no more foreign meddling, and so on.

In fact they voted for a convicted felon and rapist that lies to everyone as soon as he opens his mouth. A serial bankrupt that stole money from a charity.

That was all on the table and yet his voters said loud and clear: That guy, that criminal, that one full of hate and anger, who lies and does about everything if it is in his self interest, that's the guy that represents us best.

by Lapel2742

3/25/2026 at 3:39:47 AM

This both sides thing is stupid. Though there's always some form of military actions under either Democrats or Republicans, Republicans consistently start unilateral (and illegal) wars that leave us in massive quagmires, leave power imbalances in the middle east, and destabilize things considerably.

by ryan_lane

3/25/2026 at 9:00:59 AM

Trump won on anti-war talking points. His owners had other ideas.

by Hasslequest

3/25/2026 at 3:28:48 AM

Why on earth would anyone vote based on a Trump campaign promise?

by cosmicgadget

3/25/2026 at 7:51:26 AM

They voted to "stick it to the libs" because of how much podcasts made them feel upset.

If it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.

by libertine

3/24/2026 at 9:29:24 PM

Well let’s hope, as Bush once said, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice… can’t get fooled again.”

by lwansbrough

3/24/2026 at 9:48:32 PM

Hopefully. They've bene fooled into voting for him 3 times already.

by cdrnsf

3/24/2026 at 10:40:54 PM

The US have been fooled by Israel for the past... thirty, forty years at least? Look who Trump is sending around the world to negotiate on behalf of the US: two committed Zionists, personal friends of Netanyahu and past financers of the Israeli army. The other negotiators regard them as Israeli assets, plain and simple. While they pretend to "negotiate", Israel launches surprise attacks that have not been agreed with the US and that forces them to intervene.

by throw310822

3/25/2026 at 7:58:03 AM

Either Russian propaganda is leaking into US, or people are being so easy to manipulate it's becoming scary.

What's the deal the US not having agency? Lol

Russia was manipulated by NATO and they were fooled over and over again, according to the state propaganda - if that was true, why are they still stuck with the fool who keeps being fooled? Isn't that the sign of a deficient leadership?

Same applies to the Trump administration, until when will that narrative stick?

Because the "common sense", a big trope used by both states propaganda, claims that you can only be fooled once lol

by libertine

3/24/2026 at 11:27:41 PM

I read somewhere that Bush made this awkward figure of speech not because he didn't know the idiom, but because he realized too late that he'd be saying "shame on me" on air, which is apparently a phrase absolutely Verboten by political media advisors (because it could have been taken out of context and used by his adversaries). In a way that says a lot about the political culture that resulted in a figure like Trump, I think.

by xg15

3/25/2026 at 3:25:17 AM

Seems like the better option is to simply say, "you know the rest of the saying".

Perhaps he actually just flubbed. Many such cases.

by cosmicgadget

3/25/2026 at 12:09:38 AM

It’s been going on for a very long time. Remember USS Liberty?

by nslsm

3/24/2026 at 11:54:44 PM

I think "humiliation ritual" is a hugely important concept to keep in mind these days: It has a lot of explanatory power for the stuff we're seeing in politics. (For example, televised Trump cabinet meetings where the brown-nosing is almost beyond parody.)

A cult will demand members do things to "fit in", especially things that have a cost ("prove your sincerity") and also things which alienate them from the non-group. The latter is a ratcheting trap, leading to: "We are your only home now, nobody else will have you."

by Terr_

3/25/2026 at 2:51:05 AM

It's everything they voted for...

by bamboozled

3/25/2026 at 2:47:06 AM

20 years.

by npn

3/25/2026 at 1:44:50 AM

As long as their leaders care more about Israel than the nation they were sworn in to serve.

The response from Ted Cruz in the interview with Tucker Carlson was glaring, yet refreshing - it went from silly conspiracy to fact, overnight.

by ebbi

3/25/2026 at 6:55:31 AM

> As long as their leaders care more about Israel than the nation they were sworn in to serve.

Trump's wars and military threats (Greenland, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, etc) have more to do with Trump's ties to Epstein than Israel's foreign policy. The extent to which Russia and Israel manipulate Trump with kompromat is to be determined.

by locknitpicker

3/25/2026 at 10:20:00 AM

Epstein represented the Rothschildes, the family that founded Israel. His girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell is a Mossad asset. Separating Trump’s influence by Epstein from Trump’s influence by Israel isn’t possible. The two are intertwined.

by octopoc

3/24/2026 at 10:11:12 PM

If you take Russia as a boilerplate; never. Trump will "trickle down" the corruption to just enough people to keep everyone complacent and do as he wills.

by cyanydeez

3/24/2026 at 10:07:00 PM

So many people make so much money from it. I don’t personally this time but I did last time working for tech. Maybe I will again next time. This is the third time America been “humiliated” in my life and my life is awesome and getting better.

But that is the overall sentiment if I had to describe it without pretense

by justonceokay

3/25/2026 at 10:01:08 AM

Can there be any acceptable way out of this that doesn’t look like the Nuremberg trials?

It’s not like there can be any doubt about the criminality of all this, especially after Hegseth's “no quarter” comments. Hegseth explicitly stated that the current US policy is to summarily execute surrendering combatants!

It’d be convenient though, we could even use the same rope to hang both Trump and Putin.

by walletdrainer

3/24/2026 at 10:37:38 PM

Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly?

by Sabinus

3/25/2026 at 1:51:42 AM

Far too calmly. This is exactly why the Constitution requires Congress to declare war - so that we can't wind up in a war because of the decisions of one man.

Sure wish that was still in force...

by AnimalMuppet

3/25/2026 at 3:31:04 AM

Congress can stop it at any time. https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5799286-iran-war-powers-...

This was true of past conflicts as well. Doe v. Bush tried to challenge the Iraq Resolution because Congress had not declared war, but the US Court of Appeals dismissed the case because Congress had not opposed funding the war. The sad reality is that this is what the people had voted for, and the government is still working as intended.

by lern_too_spel

3/25/2026 at 9:30:01 AM

>Congress can stop it at any time.

No. Your congress can't stop it because it takes two to tango and Iran is clearly not willing to end the war just like that.

You people should have stopped that criminal long ago.

by Lapel2742

3/25/2026 at 6:51:44 AM

> Is it just me, or are we taking the beginning of Iraq War v 2 very calmly?

Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties.

Trump's wars are none of the above. Mobilizing a couple thousand troops here and there for a war that can be orders of magnitude more intensive than Iraq War V2 and without any semblance of support is a clear sign of starting a war while signaling their own impending defeat.

Let's not fool ourselves: the only parties benefiting from this nonsense is Russia and China.

by locknitpicker

3/25/2026 at 7:13:49 AM

> Iraq war is not a suitable comparison. That event was a decisive US victory that resulted from thorough planning, extensive international support and collaboration, and total commitment from all parties.

I think you mean the Gulf War in the early 1990s. The Iraq War, 2003 - ~2011, had relatively little international support, was poorly planned (they promised no more than 6 weeks, had no plans for occupation, etc.), and was spent fighting Iranian-backed militias and ISIS.

by mmooss

3/25/2026 at 10:32:19 AM

The 2003 Iraq war was a pretty decisive military victory for the invaders. Iraqi command and control destroyed in the opening stages. About a month to complete occupation of the country.

The subsequent years were a complete clusterfuck. Largely because of a missing theory of victory, the inept neocons the administration selected to run the civilian side, and the lack of strategic military-civilian coordination.

by ethbr1

3/25/2026 at 10:04:54 AM

Not to mention the first gulf war had UN support. (Back when the USA respected international law).

by GJim

3/25/2026 at 10:35:36 AM

Including USSR!

by ethbr1

3/25/2026 at 7:04:07 AM

I think this war has been planned copiously and the fact that the front man makes it look stupid and takes all the blame is part of the plan

by slim

3/25/2026 at 2:30:19 AM

this never ends well....

by yanhangyhy

3/25/2026 at 3:31:18 AM

Yeah but he painted himself into a corner with the Hormuz thing.

by cosmicgadget

3/25/2026 at 3:28:51 AM

sending young americans off to die for israels relgious war and bury epstein news. the entire usa still operating my team vs your team. president trump is pedophile child rapist and noone can bother to care. sad times all around

by sitzkrieg

3/25/2026 at 2:56:39 AM

[dead]

by TesterVetter

3/24/2026 at 9:11:49 PM

Wars are waged through inflation. Allowing the federal government to "print money", essentially write checks on a negative account balance, is funding these forever wars.

If you continue to support reckless taxation, this is what you will get.

by exabrial

3/24/2026 at 9:28:39 PM

IIRC, the US debt is at 39 trillion right now, with no plan to pay it back. Which is logical, because it's unpayable. There's no way in the world that will ever be paid back. I still haven't seen anybody properly analyze how high the debt can go before it actually can't go any higher, but we're going to find out.

by commandlinefan

3/25/2026 at 5:34:22 AM

> it's unpayable

The deficit/debt exist because US tax rates (even including fed+state+local) are so low compared to every other major advanced economy in the world, even before last year's "One Big Beautiful (Ugly?) Bill". In fact, the US could have raised rates by more than 15% and still been the lowest. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/ap...

If US tax rates were even just the average among other G7 countries, it would be trillions more than the deficit per year.

(The US also has the lowest spending (fed+state+local) among them as well, but even though our spending is the lowest among them, the tax rates are so very low they're still not enough to cover even the lower spending compared to them. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2025/Ap... )

by no-name-here

3/25/2026 at 1:28:44 AM

Private US wealth is in the range of 200-400 trillion. A blanket 1% annual wealth tax would wipe out the debt in 10-20 years.

75% of US debt is held domestically. So most of that money will go back into the country.

It's highly unlikely a lucrative revenue stream like this would ever go to paying off the debt. But theoretically the money exists.

by triceratops

3/25/2026 at 1:38:26 AM

The problem is that the constitution doesn't allow for a wealth tax. If you remember, we had to pass an amendment to be able to levy a tax on income, and that amendment is clear in that it only applies to income.

Interestingly, it was also promised to be only 1% or so on the richest households, and it has become, er, different.

But more important to the point, as the government already taxes about 20% of income, that is equivalent to holding about 20% of the wealth, as the wealth is just an income generating device and the value of the wealth is the flow of income it generates, of which 20% is already taxed.

What I'd like to know is why people are obsessed about stocks and flows in completely different ways. For example, not caring about the deficit but worrying about the debt, or vice versa, or focusing on taxing wealth but not really caring about taxing income.

I think the idea of taxing income makes a lot of sense, and don't want the government to try to value assets, particularly illiquid assets. And if it was up to me, I would dramatically simplify the tax code to eliminate all deductions and tax all income at the same rate, regardless of source. No reason to have one tax rate for carried interest, another tax rate for dividend payments, a third tax rate for wage income. Treat all income the same, and apply a progressive rate to the total income. Your tax form should not be more than a page long.

by carefree-bob

3/25/2026 at 6:38:40 AM

Contemporary interpretation of the Constitution does not allow a wealth tax.

From Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

A future Congress could interpret this to mean paying off the debt is in the general welfare of the country. And if SCOTUS wants to beef, Congress could craft "exceptions" and "regulations" to their appellate power which is power explicitly granted to Congress.

"3 equal branches" is modern propaganda. Congress is the more powerful branch given its explicit power to control Executive function through budgets and strip SCOTUS justices of all but a few ceremonial powers to do with ambassadors and other foreign states. Then we might actually have a Judiciary again instead of Executive, Legislative, and SCOTUS.

But Congress is full of rich people who intentionally avoid flexing the full power against the other two branches.

by yabutlivnWoods

3/25/2026 at 1:58:38 AM

> What I'd like to know is why people are obsessed about stocks and flows in completely different ways...focusing on taxing wealth but not really caring about taxing income.

Because wealth grows faster than income.

r > g

It's easy, especially for rich people with lots of wealth, to have low taxable income.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Ce...

> not caring about the deficit but worrying about the debt

Are there people like that? The debt is the sum of all deficits.

by triceratops

3/25/2026 at 2:04:26 AM

I disagree that r > g over long periods, rather there are some periods where it is less and others where it is more and it basically averages out to r = g. If you do not believe that, then you have to think that capital income will be larger than GDP, which is mathematically impossible, as capital income is one component of GDP and the ratio is relatively stable over time.

More importantly, it does not matter at all whether r > g, because both capital income and wage income are taxed. If you don't believe that, try not reporting your capital income and see how that works out.

However, you will say, long term dividend income is taxed at a lower rate, whereas wage income is taxed at a higher rate. Correct! That is why I said that the solution to that is not to impose a wealth tax, but to tax them at the same rate. All market income should be taxed at the same rate, and that solves your r > g non-problem.

by carefree-bob

3/25/2026 at 2:07:21 AM

You can choose not to realize capital income. Borrow against assets.

If we're treating that as income too, then this is a different conversation.

by triceratops

3/25/2026 at 2:54:54 AM

Personally I feel that by using an asset as collateral the person is essentially “realizing” the gain (the person is formally and contractually saying the asset is worth at least this much and using it to exchange something of value, even if only in case of default) and should pay capital gain tax for however much the gain was based on assessed collateral value minus the cost basis. And the cost basis steps up to the assessed collateral value.

by panda88888

3/25/2026 at 3:04:19 AM

Yes, let's discuss this. By the way, for the r=g, head on over to measuringworth.com, which has long term GDP and interest rate data, and run the calculations, you'll see how r = g over long periods but swings above and below, it doesn't track it exactly. I used to be fascinated by this stuff and generated lots of charts and even had an econ blog but that was a long time ago. The data is out there.

In terms of borrowing against assets to "escape" paying taxes, I wonder if you have a problem with someone who borrows to pay their taxes. It's the same thing. At the end of the day, they will need to pay interest on the loan, and that rate will be more than the risk free rate.

What is strange is that you never hear the opposite argument:

If you want taxation to be based on spending rather than income, then you want consumption taxes. Now a lot of economists hate income taxes as a group and think only consumption should be taxed, in which case you make a billion but only pay taxes on what you spend.

Overall, do you think billionaires would fare better with consumption only taxes or with income only taxes? How many assets pay no interest ever? It's a weird argument to be making, that billionaires escape consumption taxes when they spend down their savings.

But even here, people are making a mistake, because eventually you need to sell assets to dispose of the loan, and that's when you pay taxes on the realized gains, with interest. And the interest rate charged to the billionare will be more than the risk free rate which the government can use to borrow, so if the government just borrows the expected amount of taxes and rolls over the loan, the government will outlive the billionare and when the estate is settled, all that spending, plus interest, will be realized gains (100% gains, remember) and the tax bill will be paid in full.

This is really no different than borrowing to pay your taxes. Sure, in a sense you "avoid" paying taxes, but not really.

So what you really want is to close the income tax loopholes. Treat inheritance income as income. Ban non-profits. Ban "foundations" that don't pay tax, etc. All you need to do is treat all income equally for tax purposes and you are fine. No one can escape taxes, even if they borrow to pay their taxes.

by carefree-bob

3/25/2026 at 3:13:24 AM

> that rate will be more than the risk free rate.

For rich individuals it could be the risk free rate. Banks can curry favor with rich individuals and gain other business if they do this.

> are making a mistake, because eventually you need to sell assets to dispose of the loan, and that's when you pay taxes on the realized gains, with interest

You seem clued in to this stuff. You really haven't heard of Buy-Borrow-Die?

https://smartasset.com/investing/buy-borrow-die-how-the-rich...

> Treat inheritance income as income

That works too.

by triceratops

3/24/2026 at 9:39:54 PM

Without any funny business (meaning no re-valuation of the debt, which I guess there are strategies for) and assuming an interest rate on the debt of between 3-5%, I figured between 10-20 years before the interest payments eat up most essential services.

by Ancalagon

3/24/2026 at 9:35:23 PM

Monetize it or default are the only options I think. Monetizing affects everyone while default only (directly) affects bond holders. Monetizing is much easier to obfuscate though so that is probably what will happen.

by pfannkuchen

3/24/2026 at 10:29:27 PM

Perhaps, but the monetization would have to be pretty extreme. And that would send interest rates to the moon, making further borrowing difficult.

While these things are impossible to predict, my guess is that in a couple decades the government will do some sort of technical default. Force Treasury bond holders to exchange their current holdings at par for new bonds with longer maturities and artificially low interest rates. Politicians will be able to claim that no one has lost money since the nominal bond values will remain the same even though the market values will be much lower.

The other thing I expect to happen is that the government will force retirement accounts (both defined benefit pension plans and defined contribution 401k plans) to purchase Treasury bonds. Because of course they're so much "safer" for retirees than risky stocks.

by nradov

3/24/2026 at 9:20:57 PM

the US has run deficits for years, so it's not reckless taxation in the form I think you mean. "Pay for its bills" would be a novel concept, involving undoing various "give money to rich people" tax cuts.

In the current environment, very unlikely.

by jleyank

3/25/2026 at 3:33:55 AM

Printing money is monetary policy. Running a huge debt is fiscal policy.

You're advocating for more taxation to cover the debt, yes?

by cosmicgadget

3/25/2026 at 9:12:59 AM

I think their point is that by giving the gov control of monetary policy, you give the executive branch access to an unrestricted lever of taxation. They support "normal" taxation because they are easier to control than inflation

by Hasslequest