What about the debt?

1. 72

   rhamsonposted 7 years ago

   What seems to elude the media is the National debt and I wonder what Trump has in mind for that. Nothing is my guess as most Presidents ignore it as a policy. Currently with a national debt of $19,932,484,327,904 and rising and with approximately a 322,761,807 population we each have a debt of $61,756 check that is due the government. This on top of what I already owe is alarming to me. What about that? Who is going to pay this forward?

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Rich people.  Rich people will pay it all. 
      
      Except that in practice, it is our children and grandchildren that will pay it...if it is ever paid at all.  More likely is that we will either default or forever pay interest in the goodies we bought with the loans decades ago.  Certainly those that got something for it will never be asked to pay.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         It is not even on the back burner for discussion. We are drowning in debt and all Congress can do is figure out new was to expand it. For our irresponsible behavior this country will continue to decline just as the other empires over time have. Is China the next super power to eclipse us and when?

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            No arguments from me.  Politicians buy their way to power by borrowing and giving it away; citizens assuage their conscience by telling the politicians to do so rather than buying American made while other citizens demand what they want but cannot afford.  All are easier than actually attacking the problem of low paying jobs with something that might work.

            replyreport
   2. 63

      PhoenixVposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Its just another 10 trillion. And your income tax check return. But it saved us all from the Great Repossession since the depressing days of the thirties.

      replyreport
   3. 78

      colorfuloneposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Quantitative easing vs what we have, macro-economics?
      
      I don't have any answers.

      replyreport
2. 74

   Castlepalomaposted 7 years ago

   Is I not amazing how bank can print up a trillion dollar, maybe it cost them hundred dollar in ink and paper, it is nice they don't charge us for that expense. Because they make far more money  on the hyperinflation interest from the people. Where the Government is never going to pay back the loan they keep borrowing . If the Government were a business they would always go bankrupted, over and over like Trump. That means we all go down with the ship of fools with no life saver because soon we will all be in a Global depression.
   
   I have already jumped ship, somebody has to present the dark clouds ahead. It sucks that it it has to be me. I rather be playing in a sandbox with the joyboys, as the same as I've done most of my life.

   replyreport
3. 77

   Kathleen Cochranposted 7 years ago

   Bill Clinton didn't ignore it.  He left us with a surplus that Bush II couldn't get rid of fast enough.  Remember the $600 checks we all got between January and September 2001?  Remember what you spent that $600 on?  Neither can I.  I'd rather we still had a surplus.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      PhoenixVposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      bill inherited it from President Ronald Reagan.

      replyreport
      1. 72

         rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

         Reagan's numbers are usually jumbled by whoever you wish to listen too. Yes Reagan handed a surplus over to Clinton but he tripled the deficit in doing so. Clinton took the surplus and balanced the budget and all but erased the deficit spending for a short while.
         
         If you have a love affair with Reagan here are some more unpopular things he did during his time in the White House.
         
         https://thinkprogress.org/10-things-con … .o5bwfitvo

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

            That's confusing.  Are you saying that Reagan took in more than was being spent, but then siphoned off more than the excess (without spending it) and hid it in Fort Knox or something, leaving it necessary to borrow to cover expenditures?  And then Clinton refrained from hiding any, but ended up spending more than was coming in anyway? 
            
            Not understanding how a person, household or government can have a surplus of money coming in (more than is being spent) and yet a deficit (less coming in than is being spent) at the same time.

            replyreport
            1. 72

               rhamsonposted 7 years agoin reply to this

               It is quite simple. He did not pay anything towards the debt as most Presidents don't.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

                  Not paying unnecessary principle on a debt is not the same as running a deficit.
                  
                  Nor did Clinton balancing the budget (zero deficit, zero surplus) mean that he paid down the national debt.  Just that he didn't borrow to make daily expenses.

                  replyreport
   2. 94

      wildernessposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Do you remember the $1,000,000 checks Obama sent to each household?  And what you spent it on?
      
      Wait.  That $2,000,000,000,000 went to banks that made bad business decisions, corporations that made bad business decisions and some individuals that made bad mortgage decisions.  And of course the 3 "shovel ready" infrastructure jobs in the country.  Do you remember what they spent your children's money on?

      replyreport