National Debt a Critical Election Issue for Swing State Voters

Oct 22, 2024

As we enter the final stretch of the 2024 election, Vice President Harris and former President Trump are tied across swing states – and new polling shows that the national debt is a critical issue for voters in these decisive states. More than 9-in-10 voters across seven key states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — say it’s important for candidates to have a plan for the debt, including 95% of Harris voters, 97% of Trump voters and 95% of undecided voters.

Additionally, 3-in-4 voters in these battleground states say they want candidates to talk more about the debt and their plans to address it – outpacing the percentages of voters who say the same for other hot button election issues including immigration, abortion, climate change and foreign policy.

Thus far neither candidate has put forward a plan to address our $35 trillion national debt. A recent analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that Harris’s campaign plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion through 2035, while President Trump’s plan would increase the debt by $7.5 trillion. But there’s still time for candidates to put forward plans, and there are many policy options to choose from.

Download as PDF

Swing state voters care about the national debt.

Want to share this image on your site? Copy and paste the embed code below:

Feel free to share this infographic on Twitter.

Tweet: So far, neither Presidential candidate has put forward a plan to address our $35 trillion national debt. https://ctt.ec/KMVOW+ via @pgpfoundation

Tweet: Battleground state voters want a plan for the national debt even if it means spending cuts and/or tax increases. https://ctt.ec/Vj57l+ via @pgpfoundation

Tweet: Three in four swing state voters want to hear more from Presidential candidates about addressing the national debt. That’s more than say the same for other hot button election issues. https://ctt.ec/H6Lez+ via @pgpfoundation

Tweet: Swing state voters want Presidential candidates to address the national debt because they know it affects other key economic issues. https://ctt.ec/QzKoL+ via @pgpfoundation

National Debt a Critical Election Issue for Swing State Voters

Oct 22, 2024

Download as PDF

Swing state voters care about the national debt.

Want to share this image on your site? Copy and paste the embed code below:

Feel free to share this infographic on Twitter.

Tweet: So far, neither Presidential candidate has put forward a plan to address our $35 trillion national debt. https://ctt.ec/KMVOW+ via @pgpfoundation

Tweet: Battleground state voters want a plan for the national debt even if it means spending cuts and/or tax increases. https://ctt.ec/Vj57l+ via @pgpfoundation

Tweet: Swing state voters want Presidential candidates to address the national debt because they know it affects other key economic issues. https://ctt.ec/QzKoL+ via @pgpfoundation

But Green is describing more than just a new calculation. He’s talking about a new form of misery.’ It’s a poverty where you may still have most of the accoutrements of middle-class life. But your relationship with the financial elite has changed: you are indentured to the credit industry — for life.

Historically, when the Fed has cut into inflation above 3%, one of two outcomes tends to follow:

A brief reprieve, followed by a larger inflation wave (see: 1970s).

A crisis born from cheap money rather than expensive money (see: housing in the 2000s).

We are heading into another round of cuts with:

• A still-bloated balance sheet

• A new digital plumbing that auto-funds the Treasury

• Hard-asset markets flashing warning lights

Paul Tudor Jones summed it up in one dry quip: interest expense is now one of Washington’s largest bills; commodities are “ridiculously under-owned”; and “all roads lead to inflation.”

The Fed’s flip from QT to easing doesn’t end this inflation episode. It likely begins its next season.

The question investors should ask themselves isn’t whether this trend is sustainable – it isn’t.

Instead, they should ask if the $2 trillion increase in Google’s market cap has sucked capital away from other promising parts of the market – and if so, where investors can expect a rally when Google reverses.

Long have we dwelt on the corrupting influence of funny money on capital asset prices and on the economy. Everything gets distorted, perverse…and false. We get high prices. We get low prices. What we don’t get are honest prices.

Yesterday, we looked at the ‘small time crooks’ — ripping off the public for a million or two.

Today, we move to the big fry.

You’ll recall that the money in question was never earned by anyone. No one has a genuine claim to it. And what kind of apple falls from this funny money tree? Just what you’d expect…a funny one…with the worms already in it.