This may come off as a leading question but I’m sincerely curious. The US is currently in 27 trillion worth of debt which is quite a bit more than even our 2020 GDP (20.8 trillion). We are now throwing around another 1 to 3 trillion dollar stimulus package to add to that massive debt. It seems both leading Republicans and Democrats no longer discuss the massive debt problem, don’t care or just don’t want to deal with it.
So my question is- what’s the game plan for the US national debt? Do the political leaders just plan to keep on spending and see what happens? Leave it to future generations? Is their some financial manipulation politicians are counting on the erase the debt? I guess just printing money is a viable option but that would destroy the wealth of many Americans- which they should be concerned about.
Are Americans not concerned about the national debt any longer?
Report Thread
-
-
In about 3 weeks it will once again become a massive issue for all Republicans.
They've had 4 years of not caring, but for one reason or another, they're about to care a huge amount. -
I’ll send a box of tissues.
-
trollism wrote:
In about 3 weeks it will once again become a massive issue for all Republicans.
They've had 4 years of not caring, but for one reason or another, they're about to care a huge amount.
Exactly! Neither party seems to be particularly concerned about the massive debt even though it looks like a really big problem that will eventually effect the majority of Americans. Why is this? It seems like it should be the biggest issue this country is facing. -
It's the short term vs long term.
This society doesn't care about anyone except themselves.
We have structured our finance such that it's the next generation that gets hit, not us. So, we don't care. -
Everyone was copying and pasting current numbers about gas prices, unemployment, stock market, etc. to compare them after 4 years of Biden's presidency. Funny how they omitted that little number. 😄😄😄
-
Anyone truly concerned with the national debt will support taxing the rich. If they aren't pushing for that, then any "concern" is fake.
-
trollism wrote:
In about 3 weeks it will once again become a massive issue for all Republicans.
They've had 4 years of not caring, but for one reason or another, they're about to care a huge amount.
Exactly.
It's kind of funny that nobody said anything when Trump plunged the country into the biggliest debt swap. -
orsufferfortherestofyourlife wrote:
Anyone truly concerned with the national debt will support taxing the rich. If they aren't pushing for that, then any "concern" is fake.
Fair point. But shouldn’t we also be cutting costs? It seems law makers are willing to raise taxes but few are willing to actually cut anything. -
energeticlotuseater wrote:
This may come off as a leading question but I’m sincerely curious. The US is currently in 27 trillion worth of debt which is quite a bit more than even our 2020 GDP (20.8 trillion). We are now throwing around another 1 to 3 trillion dollar stimulus package to add to that massive debt. It seems both leading Republicans and Democrats no longer discuss the massive debt problem, don’t care or just don’t want to deal with it.
So my question is- what’s the game plan for the US national debt? Do the political leaders just plan to keep on spending and see what happens? Leave it to future generations? Is their some financial manipulation politicians are counting on the erase the debt? I guess just printing money is a viable option but that would destroy the wealth of many Americans- which they should be concerned about.
New economic theories have significantly lessened the concern. It now looks like we always cared too much about national debt, and wasted a lot of time worrying about it, when it hardly matters at all. -
You mean like how certain progressives have been railing against the outrageous military budget for years now?
-
I am concerned about the national debt. I do think the current COVID relief packages can reasonably be assumed to be "worth it," that is to say that plans cost less than they are worth from the perspective of the debt. It would cost more not to have these packages than to have them, similar to an oil change.
We'll need to get real about paying this money back once COVID is under control and the economy is operating in a basically normal way.
When the Trump tax cuts came into effect, the CBO said they would increase the national debt, and Republicans chose to ignore or dispute the numbers. This is all pre-COVID stuff.
A huge debt-reducing strategy is to eliminate the direct and indirect subsidies on fossil fuels and pollution, estimated to be about $5T globally annually by the IMF. It should no longer be free to diminish the value of the most public of goods, breathing air and drinking water.
This would generate a lot of revenue, although not a tax, and stimulate a green boom for the economy. If we are a leader in green industry, a large opportunity for export is available that would reduce/eliminate the trade deficit. -
The plan is for our children and grandchildren to foot the bill if we have children and grandchildren.
-
energeticlotuseater wrote:
orsufferfortherestofyourlife wrote:
Anyone truly concerned with the national debt will support taxing the rich. If they aren't pushing for that, then any "concern" is fake.
Fair point. But shouldn’t we also be cutting costs? It seems law makers are willing to raise taxes but few are willing to actually cut anything.
There isn't much to cut. SS? Not getting cut. Medicare? Not getting cut. Miltary spending? Clinton did a bit in the 90s but since then spending has ballooned. Default on our Debt payments? Not possible. Cut our prision spending? Who is in favor of letting criminals out. Cut socialist support for farmers? The midwest conservatives wouldn't stand for it. And so on.
There is a myth that their is tons of fat that we can cut in the budgets. It just isn't there. So instead we fight about a few million here and there. And yeah it would be great to save like 40 billion by getting rid of the "Waste" that is left. It just isn't enough to make much of a difference in the numbers when you are talking about an almost 5 trillion budget.
And few law makers are willing to raise taxes. When was the last time anyone suggest going back to say the even the Regan level of taxes on the middle class? Or raising gas taxes to keep up with inflation? And so on. -
energeticlotuseater wrote:
This may come off as a leading question but I’m sincerely curious. The US is currently in 27 trillion worth of debt which is quite a bit more than even our 2020 GDP (20.8 trillion). We are now throwing around another 1 to 3 trillion dollar stimulus package to add to that massive debt. It seems both leading Republicans and Democrats no longer discuss the massive debt problem, don’t care or just don’t want to deal with it.
So my question is- what’s the game plan for the US national debt? Do the political leaders just plan to keep on spending and see what happens? Leave it to future generations? Is their some financial manipulation politicians are counting on the erase the debt? I guess just printing money is a viable option but that would destroy the wealth of many Americans- which they should be concerned about.
I think everyone recognizes that the debt will never really be paid off now. There may be consequences in the future, but there’s almost no point in introducing policies to reduce it as we can’t pay off $27T+. -
energeticlotuseater wrote:
orsufferfortherestofyourlife wrote:
Anyone truly concerned with the national debt will support taxing the rich. If they aren't pushing for that, then any "concern" is fake.
Fair point. But shouldn’t we also be cutting costs? It seems law makers are willing to raise taxes but few are willing to actually cut anything.
This isn't what needs to happen. The question is over what period do you need to repay the debt? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years?
Debts accrued after WWII and the Great Depression were unnoticeably repayed because some of the economic growth paid back the debt but living standards and incomes still rose.
If you cut with ambitious aims of paying the debt prematurely you risk deepening the recession and the stalling growth that would be used to pay the debt. -
Nope, not concerned. The high amount of spending is a concern, but whether it is financed through debt or taxes or money printing is unimportant.
-
adsfdasfasfsafadfa wrote:
energeticlotuseater wrote:
orsufferfortherestofyourlife wrote:
Anyone truly concerned with the national debt will support taxing the rich. If they aren't pushing for that, then any "concern" is fake.
Fair point. But shouldn’t we also be cutting costs? It seems law makers are willing to raise taxes but few are willing to actually cut anything.
There isn't much to cut. SS? Not getting cut. Medicare? Not getting cut. Miltary spending? Clinton did a bit in the 90s but since then spending has ballooned. Default on our Debt payments? Not possible. Cut our prision spending? Who is in favor of letting criminals out. Cut socialist support for farmers? The midwest conservatives wouldn't stand for it. And so on.
There is a myth that their is tons of fat that we can cut in the budgets. It just isn't there. So instead we fight about a few million here and there. And yeah it would be great to save like 40 billion by getting rid of the "Waste" that is left. It just isn't enough to make much of a difference in the numbers when you are talking about an almost 5 trillion budget.
And few law makers are willing to raise taxes. When was the last time anyone suggest going back to say the even the Regan level of taxes on the middle class? Or raising gas taxes to keep up with inflation? And so on.
This is basically what I think. With the amount of debt we currently have we need to raise money and start cutting costs. Raising taxes will be fought but eventually they will get raised, especially on “rich” people. It’s just where the political climate is moving IMO.
However, cutting costs will be hard, there are so many entrenched interests. Most likely we’ll find ourselves continually getting taxed higher while still falling deeper into debt.
At some point this massive debt is going to be a problem- you just don’t want to be the generation that has to deal with it. -
This generation: "Hey, it's only money!" ; Next generation: " I'm so tired of eating grubs and living out of a tent!"
-
Oliver Blanchard, in his 2019 AEA Presidential Address, puts forward some pro-debt arguments, among them that rates have been less than growth rates for a long time (r - g < 0), and this changes the game to some extent. He even argues that the crowding out of private investment and the welfare losses are lower than previously thought.
Points are well taken, but there are still concerns. One basic concern is simply if rates do rise for whatever reason, the interest payments on the budget explode.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.109.4.1197
