It's inflation adjusted wages. As in adjusted for changes in average costs of living. Most people don't spend all their money on TVs. they spend it on food, housing, transportation, clothing and other things that existed in 1973. Furthermore, they adjust the inflation figure to account for changes in the technological utility of things
Judging by Japan's example, a lot more. Though you never really know. It's like trying to predict just how much snow will cause an avalanche. All you can really do is look at it and say 'that looks dangerous.'
Non-discretionary spending is mandatory spending, aka entitlement spending. Implied in the name 'non-discretionary' is that you can't just cut it without major entitlement reform.
The point of the article is that without that entitlement reform it's very hard to balance the budget, even with 100% taxes on the 1%.
Fair enough. Nonetheless I don't think the point of the article is to compare the US to Europe but simply to reflect on the wide range that exists within the US.
So roughly half as much for a continent with over twice the population and 44 sovereign countries? The difference between areas in South Dakota and Colorado is bigger than that between Luxembourg and Moldova
That's the way reporting on the repayment of the national debt is done. The point of the article is unchanged. Those familiar with Treasuries will understand
If I run a deficit of 100 dollars, borrow 100 dollars and I repay the loan by borrowing 100 dollars and the interest on both is 10 dollars, than I owe 220 dollars but I only got 100 dollars of real spending.
That is what the article is saying. of the $21.4 trillion in debt, only $14 trillion funded deficits and half of those deficits were the results of rolling debt over.