We're still paying compounding "minimum amount due" from iraq and afghanistan trillions bill, thanks to the Republican party's poor strategic decisions
This guy seems to think it's better to have higher debt costs now than later; in my opinion he seems to overlook that his solution would likely cost more due to higher current debt costs which means more debt later via *compounding* Guy's clueless, hyperpartisan and represents bond traders wanting higher yields, imo. He overlooks previous high bill issuance periods (i think he was a part of), discounts the fact that it *is* wartime. I think bill issuance was high during a period in 2000s, 2020(his era in govt), and now (russia war) The US cannot afford a substantial recession. Nor can it afford high longterm debt because higher 10yr will kill economy in addition to having to pay that bill
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Detective of Money Politics is following this very informative content cheers from VK3GFS and 73s from Frank from Melbourne Australia
We're still paying compounding "minimum amount due" from iraq and afghanistan trillions bill, thanks to the Republican party's poor strategic decisions
This guy seems to think it's better to have higher debt costs now than later; in my opinion he seems to overlook that his solution would likely cost more due to higher current debt costs which means more debt later via *compounding*
Guy's clueless, hyperpartisan and represents bond traders wanting higher yields, imo. He overlooks previous high bill issuance periods (i think he was a part of), discounts the fact that it *is* wartime.
I think bill issuance was high during a period in 2000s, 2020(his era in govt), and now (russia war)
The US cannot afford a substantial recession. Nor can it afford high longterm debt because higher 10yr will kill economy in addition to having to pay that bill