U.S. budget deficit edged lower in 2025 as tariffs, debt payments both saw new records

Grokmaster

Grokmaster

Well-known member
Contributor
Sweet !! Trumponomics keeps on rolling !!! A good start in the right direction !



U.S. budget deficit edged lower in 2025 as tariffs, debt payments both saw new records​




  • The U.S. budget deficit edged lower for 2025 as record-setting tariff collections helped offset what also were unprecedented numbers for payments on the spiraling national debt.
  • The red ink would have been worse had it not been for a massive surge in customs duties and a September surplus of $198 billion that also set a record for the month.


The U.S. budget deficit edged lower for 2025 as record-setting tariff collections helped offset what also were unprecedented numbers for payments on the spiraling national debt, the Treasury Department announced Thursday.

In a year marked by a bruising trade war and high financing costs, the federal government managed to escape with a $1.78 trillion shortfall, some $41 billion, or 2.2%, less than in fiscal 2024.




While that’s still on the high end historically, the red ink would have been still worse had it not been for a massive surge in customs duties and a September surplus of $198 billion that also set a record for the month.

President Donald Trump’s tariffs were a major contributor to tariff collections of $202 billion for the year, representing a 142% surge from 2024. September saw $30 billion in tariff payments, up 295% from the same period a year ago.



 
The deficit dropped from $1.82 trillion to $1.78 trillion. That is technically downward, but at those levels it is basically a rounding error. These are outrageous numbers, and very few people care outside of partisans who only complain when the other side is doing the spending.

Record debt payments are a huge red flag. We are paying more in interest, which means less for everything else.

Sadly, there is no incentive for anything to change right now.
 
cawacko said:
The deficit dropped from $1.82 trillion to $1.78 trillion. That is technically downward, but at those levels it is basically a rounding error. These are outrageous numbers, and very few people care outside of partisans who only complain when the other side is doing the spending.

Record debt payments are a huge red flag. We are paying more in interest, which means less for everything else.

Sadly, there is no incentive for anything to change right now
Click to expand...



Desperate to insert a cloud into a silver lining?

Down is down; is it a move in the right direction.
 
Grokmaster said:
Desperate to insert a cloud into a silver lining?

Down is down; is it a move in the right direction.
Click to expand...
Down is only meaningful if the change is significant. A drop from $1.82T to $1.78T is basically flat. We’re still running enormous deficits, adding huge amounts to the debt, and nothing structural has changed. There’s no silver lining here.

Politicians won’t lead on this because voters punish them for taking things away, not for overspending. There’s no incentive to fix the problem, so nothing changes.
 
cawacko said:
Down is only meaningful if the change is significant. A drop from $1.82T to $1.78T is basically flat. We’re still running enormous deficits, adding huge amounts to the debt, and nothing structural has changed. There’s no silver lining here.

Politicians won’t lead on this because voters punish them for taking things away, not for overspending. There’s no incentive to fix the problem, so nothing changes.
Click to expand...
Your opinion regarding what is "meaningful" does not change the numbers.

Enjoy your floundering.
 
cawacko said:
Down is only meaningful if the change is significant. A drop from $1.82T to $1.78T is basically flat. We’re still running enormous deficits, adding huge amounts to the debt, and nothing structural has changed. There’s no silver lining here.

Politicians won’t lead on this because voters punish them for taking things away, not for overspending. There’s no incentive to fix the problem, so nothing changes.
Click to expand...
2.2% is significant when you are talking tens of billions.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
2.2% is significant when you are talking tens of billions.
Click to expand...
It’s only “significant” if it changes the trajectory. A 2.2% dip on a $1.8T deficit does not change anything about our long term fiscal path. We’re still adding nearly two trillion a year to the debt, and interest costs are still exploding. That isn’t progress in any meaningful sense.

For fun, I looked this up. At this pace, with a 2.2% annual reduction, it would take 26 years just to get to a $1 trillion deficit. And at 2.2% a year, it would take roughly 240 years to balance the budget.

There is nothing significant about that.
 
Last edited:
cawacko said:
It’s only “significant” if it changes the trajectory. A 2.2% dip on a $1.8T deficit does not change anything about our long term fiscal path. We’re still adding nearly two trillion a year to the debt, and interest costs are still exploding. That isn’t progress in any meaningful sense.

For fun, I looked this up. At this pace, with a 2.2% annual reduction, it would take 26 years just to get to a $1 trillion deficit. And at 2.2% a year, it would take roughly 240 years to balance the budget.

There is nothing significant about that.
Click to expand...
It will be significant if this continues into next year. While Trump has just four years, and we can't know who will follow him in office, if he manages to keep the same or a slightly higher pace, even a 10% reduction in the debt will be significant. Biden increased it just over 21%. Outside of the Chinese Disease shut down, Trump increased it about 9% in his first term.

Reducing it should be a national priority.
 
cawacko said:
It’s only “significant” if it changes the trajectory. A 2.2% dip on a $1.8T deficit does not change anything about our long term fiscal path. We’re still adding nearly two trillion a year to the debt, and interest costs are still exploding. That isn’t progress in any meaningful sense.

For fun, I looked this up. At this pace, with a 2.2% annual reduction, it would take 26 years just to get to a $1 trillion deficit. And at 2.2% a year, it would take roughly 240 years to balance the budget.

There is nothing significant about that.
Click to expand...
Says who?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It will be significant if this continues into next year. While Trump has just four years, and we can't know who will follow him in office, if he manages to keep the same or a slightly higher pace, even a 10% reduction in the debt will be significant. Biden increased it just over 21%. Outside of the Chinese Disease shut down, Trump increased it about 9% in his first term.

Reducing it should be a national priority.
Click to expand...
Yes it should, but no one really cares except for partisans who don't like when the other side does the spending. Politicians get punished at the ballot box for reducing spending, rarely for increasing it.

If we were serious about it we would start with entitlements, but neither party now wants to touch it.
 
cawacko said:
It’s only “significant” if it changes the trajectory. A 2.2% dip on a $1.8T deficit does not change anything about our long term fiscal path. We’re still adding nearly two trillion a year to the debt, and interest costs are still exploding. That isn’t progress in any meaningful sense.

For fun, I looked this up. At this pace, with a 2.2% annual reduction, it would take 26 years just to get to a $1 trillion deficit. And at 2.2% a year, it would take roughly 240 years to balance the budget.

There is nothing significant about that.
Click to expand...
If you consider that the CPI increases the debt can stay the same but in real dollars it’s decreasing.
 
cawacko said:
My calculation in Excel. Do you get a different result?
Click to expand...
Oh...really? Excel tells you what is "meaningful", and what is not?

Please link.


My result is that this could definitely continue/improve, and it is absolutely a move in the right direction.

The economic "experts" have been wrong bout nearly everything ...
 
Grokmaster said:
Oh...really? Excel tells you what is "meaningful", and what is not?

Please link.


My result is that this could definitely continue/improve, and it is absolutely a move in the right direction.

The economic "experts" have been wrong bout nearly everything ...
Click to expand...
What is meaningful is addressing structural issues, starting with entitlements. That is not happening, nor is anything else.

With respect, you sound like Stephanie Kelton and the MMT folks (Bernie Sanders people). They argue deficits do not matter because we control the printing press.

This attitude is why we have close to a $2 trillion deficit and $36 trillion national debt. Because very few people really care.
 
cawacko said:
What is meaningful is addressing structural issues, starting with entitlements. That is not happening, nor is anything else.

With respect, you sound like Stephanie Kelton and the MMT folks (Bernie Sanders people). They argue deficits do not matter because we control the printing press.

This attitude is why we have close to a $2 trillion deficit and $36 trillion national debt. Because very few people really care.
Click to expand...
Just makeup some bullshit I never said, whereas you go through ridiculous linguistic gyrations and pretzel logic to try to declare a reduction is not a reduction, while then positing bullshit (aka: "your opinion") of the "meaningfulness" of this non-reduction.

IOW, purely speculative bullshit on your part, that you continue to try to pass off as factual.

As I said, it is a move in the right direction, regardless of your overwrought viewpoint.

You sound like every other "economic expert" who has been wrong all year long, about nearly everything.

I prefer to accept the good news, nd wait to see where it goes from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top