Debt and drama hands
Unserious journalism on a serious topic.
As I've said in the past: Rapidly expanding federal debt is a problem because it means we (the national/societal "we") have a lot less flexibility in the face of very large and expensive system shocks. Think: Major wars, big depressions, etc.
So on the one hand, I'm happy to see actual, by-God mainstream reporting about this issue. On the other hand? I have to ask: What's so special about $33 trillion? I'm not sure I remember similar reporting on the ride up through 20 trillion, 21 trillion, 22 trillion, etc.
Also: Reporting about the debt only in terms of dollars, with no mention of GDP, is borderline journalistic malpractice. Turns out the economy is growing along with the debt -- currently, the interest-on-the-debt-to-GDP ratio is right about where it was in 2010. Before that, it was in a similar spot in the late 1990s. Before that? In the late 1970s.
None of that makes the current debt level OK. But it does mean it's not exactly the unprecedented thing NYT headlines are pitching.