Surprise, surprise! The authors seem to trace a large percentage to tax cuts.

Maybe this is a good time to bring up the fact trillions of dollars of tax cuts were expiring, and the OBBB extended them.

And, of course, whenever you're running a deficit budget, and choose to extend otherwise expiring tax cuts, that represents 100% new, additional borrowing. Extending the expiring cuts will cost over $2 trillion, plus service costs, of course.

All newly borrowed, and almost all to give away in tax cuts to the world's wealthiest.

"Never heard of this ridiculous premise framing it as 0 to a 40 trillion though."

You're correct. I framed it wrong. I meant to mean we were on track towards zero (Clinton left True Surplus Budgets for Dubya), but Republicans, led by Cheney and Dubya, reset America's fiscal sights from surpluses as far as the eye could see, to, at that time, the largest deficits known to man since the dawn of time.

Since then, Republicans have refused at every turn to balance revenue with spending. The math basically works out that the deficit can be directly connected to borrowing new money to give it away for tax cuts.

"The US never stopped selling treasuries, despite the supposed "surplus.""

Not the barometer, Einstein.

"Boomers always thinking its everyone else's fault"

The math is clear. So is the history: the pivotal moment was when Cheney and Dubya, without a single (D) vote, reset America's fiscal sights from Surplusville to Debtsylvania.

"Boomers it's you, and only you."

Sometimes folks admit they don't understand the equation in indirect ways.

"I thought it was just Danforth that didn't know the difference between Debt and Deficit's"

You must've missed my correction. I took responsibility for my post, and pointed out the correct verbiage.

And by the way...the work "deficits" doesn't have an apostrophe.