Is There Something Wrong With The Idea About Paying Our National Debt?

1. 60

   Eugene Hardyposted 12 years ago

   14 Trillion Dollars.
   
   That is a lot of debt.
   
   If we were a house hold with a $15,000.00 debt that the house must pay, or face bankruptcy, then the house and all it’s members must work to together to do it.
   
   
   It will take more than 20 years probably to pay it off, meaning multiple administrations and Congresses, with across the board budget cuts that are real, while at the same time maintaining services and obligations.

   replyreport
2. 83

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   he first step would be to stop adding to the debt.  There hasn't be a balanced budget in a  looooong time.

   replyreport
3. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   Most of the last 7 trillion comes from bailing out the banks and war called defense. What bail them out again?

   replyreport
4. 82

   ElizaDooleposted 12 years ago

   I wrote a hub about Reagan and his economics here: <link snipped>
   I would love your opinion. Loads of people have read it but few have commented. I would appreciate a "view" on the politics if you have time.
   Thanks x

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Reagan/Bush1/Ford increased the debt because of a democrat congress that couldn't be bothered to quit spending money. Clinton had a surplus (or whatever) because he had a Republican congress who controlled the money.
      
      Obama has not decreased the debt and will only add more to it.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         This is a problem that is more than political, more than partisanship.
         
         Therefore, the only answer I can see has to be beyond what ever political party is in power.
         
         Example: Does a credit card company care what you belong to?  All they want us to do is pay the bill.
         
         The debt is so big that it will bi-partisanship cooperation over several administrations and congresses.
         
         Or should this be strictly a Congressional Accounting Office issue, including implementation?

         replyreport
   2. 65

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I just read your Hub and voted. Nice analysis.

      replyreport
      1. 82

         ElizaDooleposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thanks Ralph - I appreciate the comments.
         Eugene I was going to add that a credit card company don't want you to pay the bill, the more you stay in debt the more interest they charge you and the more money they make.

         replyreport
5. 65

   Ralph Deedsposted 12 years ago

   The national debt will never be paid off. Once we see the light at the end of the recession tunnel it will be essential to balance the budget and begin to reduce the national deficit and national debt. Being in too big a hurry to cut the deficit would likely prolong the recession.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      This is also true.
      
      But what makes me worried is no one has mentioned a plan to cut spending, (or raise taxes!!) to pay it off over the long haul.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well, there have been a number of proposals to deal with the deficit and the debt.
         Here's a link to the National Debt Commission's report.
         
         http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/f … 1_2010.pdf
         
         Congressman Ryan has proposed cutting entitlement programs including Medicare, Welfare and Social Security but no tax increases. Obama supports a balanced approach consisting of tax increases on those who can afford them, closing unjustifiable tax loopholes and cuts in defense spending. Progress has been stymied by the Tea Partiers' in the House of Representatives refusal to consider any tax increase.
         
         Here's a link to an article on an Obama tax proposal:
         
         http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/23/busin … amp;st=cse

         replyreport
6. 63

   Astra Nomikposted 12 years ago

   How do All Americans feel about paying a debt of some "Businesses" and not the debts of other businesses. This reminds me of back when I was in school and one kid did something wrong and in order to make some point of the "never mess with Authority" kind... everyone had to be punished in the class for the sins of one person or a minority.
   
   It beats me how that strange outcome was allowed to be passed 100% by everyone, just as turkeys might vote for Christmas...
   
   There is something horribly wrong about the less well off having to be saddled with someone else's problem. Like maybe not being saddled with it at all.
   
   It is forcing a kind of new age of legalized slavery on the working classes. Why should we accept it? If Banks have obligations to always make profits because of their shareholders, can I be obligated to my family and say ... "The repayment of some businesses financial debt is not for me, since I didn't create the damn problem in the first place. And I am not a property developer or House buyer, thanks"?

   replyreport
   1. 96

      Sue Adamsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Hear, hear I totally agree with you Astra.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you too.
      
      The way it is now, will continue to grow an economic class of citizens who are no more than wage slaves, because they will always be too poor to save, too poor to go to college, too poor to build their own business.
      
      The thing is, our debt is indirectly connected to the value of our dollar, and if the value continues to decline because we haven't the social or political will to do anything about it, we will have more of the same - stuff.

      replyreport
   3. 82

      ElizaDooleposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree Astra and this brings up the other sticky issue of political representation. The personal wealth of the political class needs to be questioned, as ordinary "wage slaves" are unrepresented, unless you take some of your valuable leisure or earning time (Occupy movement?) to raise a protest. Most people don't do this because they want a roof over their head and while they may talk waves, don't want to make any in case it affects their earnings. (However meagre those earnings are, and in this case, the meagre earnings are the issue)
      Sry lots of points there.

      replyreport
7. 96

   Sue Adamsposted 12 years ago

   Eugene, you are very noble believing that you or I or any individual can help resolve the debt problem. The entire monetary system is based on debt. Money today is not used as a commodity to exchange goods and services. Money is almost exclusively used to make more money. And that is the pure insanity of it. Like a cancer, "growth for profit" is eating it's own backside.
   
   G.Edward Griffin writes in his must read book: "The Creature from Jekyll Island, A Second Look at the Federal Reserve":
   "...the bank cartels have created a form of modern serfdom in which the great mass of society works as indentured servants to a ruling class of financial nobility."
   I wrote an interesting hub on Fractional Reserve Lending which is basically a legal way for banks to create non-existent money so they can then lend it out over and over again.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Just two items, then I must leave for the day.
      
      1. Our politicians, even those of us might consider good, are not putting forward any plans that can eliminate the debt - just adding less to it or nothing at all.
      
      In the long run, we will still have trillions in growing debt, (interest).
      
      
      2. Then, We The People, must change the system, we must redesign capitalism in a way that economically empowers the poor and the average citizen.
      
      If we could empower our poor and unemployed/underemployed in generating their own income we would have more tax payers, more businesses here in the US of A, and everyone would be better off.

      replyreport
8. 60

   knolyourselfposted 12 years ago

   "Savings and loan crisis in which 747 institutions failed and had to be rescued with $160 billion of taxpayer monies.[28] Reagan's "elimination of loopholes" in the tax code included the elimination of the "passive loss" provisions that subsidized rental housing. Because this was removed retroactively, it bankrupted many real estate developments which used this tax break as a premise, which in turn bankrupted 747 Savings and Loans, many of whom were operating, moreorless, as banks, thus requiring the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to cover their debts and losses with tax payer money.

   replyreport
   1. 82

      ElizaDooleposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ah Reagan, there he is again. Seriously people need to look hard at the financial legislation he put in during his presidency. I believe things need to be undone that were done then. Having lived through his "reign" as a teenager, I can tell you that his actions upon banking and financial systems changed culture - for the worse - worldwide.

      replyreport
9. 82

   dmopposted 12 years ago

   There is certainly something wrong with the way we have found ourselves in such debt, and honestly I don't think it is right for us to have to pay it, but we have to pull together and do it for the sake of our children's futures. The US dollar, which was once considered the measure of value and was accepted in nearly every country in the world, has fast been declining in value and is no longer accepted as holding any value in many countries. This is a sad state of affairs for our great nation, but it is what it is, and we must step up and do something. My fear is that we will pay and pay, and the government will continue to abuse our hard work and hand money out to the rich people they seem so willing to help as if that money was theirs to begin with.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      True that.
      
      Not only do we need to honestly address our debt, how our government spends money on it's citizens must also be more balance.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         canadawest99posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Umm, cough, cough, U.S. national debt is closer to 200 trillion  cough cough.  That should take about 200 years to pay off.

         replyreport
         1. 65

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            There's no need to pay off the national debt. Our priority should be balancing the budget and getting the economy growing. Then the debt can be reduced. And as the economy grows the debt will become smaller in relation to the economy.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Exactly how Reagan handled it.

               replyreport
               1. 65

                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Not exactly. Reagan cut taxes and increased expenditures (defense mostly as I recall) and the national debt increased. The tax cuts did not result in increased tax revenues as predicted by the supply siders. As George H.W.Bush said this was "voodoo economics."

                  replyreport
   2. 60

      Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly.  I really don't want to pay a debt that funded policies I may be against, but it is my country and our children shouldn't have to pay it off. 
      
      Or grandchildren.

      replyreport
10. 61

    melodylewis80posted 12 years ago

    I personally wouldn't mind paying more to pay off the debt, but I fear, that like an addicted friend, the more we give them, the more they would squander.
    
    I've often wondered why the Federal government doesn't promote savings bonds more.  Instead of focusing on the Treasury Bills  which are of a high denomination, we should try and promote savings bonds for the citizens, not other nations.  If we approached it in a way like the War Bonds of WWII, our nation could effectively self fund ourselves.  It's still debt, but at least it is debt held by U.S. citizens, with the debt payments staying in the U.S. economy.

    replyreport
    1. 76

       Hugh Williamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Good post.

       replyreport
       1. 60

          Eugene Hardyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks!  Our debt is something that bothers me.  We could be in Greece's situation, and we have already had our credit rating down graded. 
          
          Do we really need to follow that path?

          replyreport