Who Should Pay Back the National Debt?

[21STEELERS21]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The national debt is really just deferred taxes, so who should be responsible for paying this money back?
Should it be the generations that were voting age at the time the debt was incurred or the generations
that follow, who had no say in who their representative was? The later would seem like taxation without
representation.

Since Reagan we have detached government spending from taxation. That was the key check and balance that
kept the debt rather low previously. Now the debt is $170,000 per tax payer or $252,000 per family of 4. If Americans
aren't required to pay for what it's government spends, the debt will just keep increasing.

If you actually read the constitution, this accumulation of debt is a big violation that everyone ignores.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The national debt is really just deferred taxes, so who should be responsible for paying this money back?

Have to be the taxpayers since that's ultimately where all the government's money comes from.

Since Reagan we have detached government spending from taxation. That was the key check and balance that
kept the debt rather low previously.

Actually no, that started under President Johnson, massive spending on the Vietnam War and putting Social Security into the general fund to make the deficit look lower.

If you actually read the constitution, this accumulation of debt is a big violation that everyone ignores.

Where were you when Bomma tripled it?

 

[Steelr4evr]

Barry should have his fair share. Since the ****** managed to double it. They should start by cutting that money sucking black hole called the federal government in half.

 

[deljzc]

We are in a very uncertain cycle of borrowing because the Government budgets have become very dependent on extremely depressed and low interest rates to borrow against. The amount of debt isn't really what matters. It's the interest you pay on your debt and your yearly payout.

Same thing with houses. If the mortgage rates are 3.0% you can buy a much bigger house that if the mortgage rates are 8-10%. Yes, you are in more "debt" but if your monthly payment is the same in both scenarios, you aren't any worse off.

Obama borrowed an insane amount of money but he did it at historically low interest rates. Which is why the government's "monthly payment" is still well within acceptable borrowing practices based on our economic output.

BUT, this windfall ends as the prime rates creeps up by the federal reserve. As the interest rate rises, new congressional spending will be replacing old Obama debt with new debt that has slightly higher interest payments.

Thus the REAL number we should all be watching is interest payment by the federal government per year and how much that relates to our GNP as a country.

Oh...and I have one more thing to say about low interest rates. It is great for everyone except one industry: banking. And THAT is the primary reason you see banks breaking the law and abusing the system. In theory, low interest rates mean banks should be making less money, but during this whole low-interest rate era, banks are still raking in 10% profits and dishing out huge boneses. Ask yourself how that is possible and you will find the corruptions between Obama-era Washington and Wall Street.

 

[Coach]

Obama who once had the nerve to call Geroge Bush Jr. unpatriotic for accumulating debt broke our bank by collecting more debt than any other president combined. Shame on him.

We now own over 20.6 trillion dollars.

The problem is not just with a staggering amount of money owed. Those financing the debt are often from China or Russia, which weakens our hand in a geopolitical sense.

To fix it, we should not spend more than we take in, and a small percentage what we collect should go to pay down the debt. Would 2% solve the problem? Anyone know?

Another solution is to add a 1% tariff on trades where things are unbalanced.

Another idea is to offer a fast path to citizenship for anyone who pays say $170,000.00 or garnish wages of a certain amount until paid. The 2nd mortgage for those here illegally, with the right to vote revoked for the deadbeats.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The problem is not just with a staggering amount of money owed. Those financing the debt are often from China or Russia, which weakens our hand in a geopolitical sense.

That, plus all those interest payments are money leaving the country, as I learned as a young economics student 35 years ago.

 

[madinsomniac]

You all do realize that a crazy conspiracy theory was that the USGovt was going to run up a huge debt mostly held by China and Russia, stock up on gold andsilver, then create hyperinflation and wreck the USDollar... you could pay it off with peanuts and as a bonus the American public would be utterly dependent on the government for a bit.....

I mean its Katsungesque when you say it out loud, but I do admit that once Obama got in, the script they laid out sure did play out well....

 

[Danburgh1]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The national debt is really just deferred taxes, so who should be responsible for paying this money back?
Should it be the generations that were voting age at the time the debt was incurred or the generations
that follow, who had no say in who their representative was? The later would seem like taxation without
representation.

Since Reagan we have detached government spending from taxation. That was the key check and balance that
kept the debt rather low previously. Now the debt is $170,000 per tax payer or $252,000 per family of 4. If Americans
aren't required to pay for what it's government spends, the debt will just keep increasing.

If you actually read the constitution, this accumulation of debt is a big violation that everyone ignores.

The politicians have not ignored it at all.
They simply keep agreeing to allow it to continue out of control.

Sent from my LG-K550 using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[DBS1970]

The key thing to remember is that we have plenty of tax money going into the government. The true problem is that our politicians have discovered they can buy votes with tax money. This is why the Democrat party six to expand the welfare state. People dependent on the government will continue to vote for politicians that promise to keep the handouts flowing. In short it's not that we citizens aren't paying enough taxes it's that the government is spending too much money.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

The key thing to remember is that we have plenty of tax money going into the government. The true problem is that our politicians have discovered they can buy votes with tax money. This is why the Democrat party six to expand the welfare state. People dependent on the government will continue to vote for politicians that promise to keep the handouts flowing. In short it's not that we citizens aren't paying enough taxes it's that the government is spending too much money.

For example Liberals always like to say that the Reagan tax cuts increased the deficit but they never recognize that tax receipts flowing into the government in 1990 were 2.5 times as much as they got in 1980.

 

[DBS1970]

For example Liberals always like to say that the Reagan tax cuts increased the deficit but they never recognize that tax receipts flowing into the government in 1990 were 2.5 times as much as they got in 1980.

View attachment 3796

They also won't acknowledge the fact of how they spent like drunken sailors on shore leave while having a vetoproof majority during both the Reagan and Bush 41 presidency.

 

[Danburgh1]

Obama collected more tax revenue than any previous admin

Sent from my LG-K550 using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[DBS1970]

Obama collected more tax revenue than any previous admin

Sent from my LG-K550 using Steeler Nation mobile app

And yet continued to spend $800 Billion a year more than we took in.

 

[IndySteel]

And yet continued to spend $800 Billion a year more than we took in.

It was more than that. He added almost $10 trillion to the debt over 8 years, double what every other president combined added.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

It's almost like government is way too big.

 

[deljzc]

Here is revenue vs. spending by year:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/federal-receipt-and-outlay-summary

One of the main reasons I am so critical of Obama is the lack of return on immense debt spending that occurred in his first term (justified or not because of the bank bailout). When you really see the numbers and how much he deficit spent from 2009-2012 it is incredibly hard to fathom that barely got us out of the recession. I mean, he takes credit for the turnaround but when you look at what he spent to do it, I don't really call that a "success story" like the liberal media talks about.

Christ, if Trump cut taxes another $1 trillions PER YEAR and didn't cut spending at all, he would be doing what Obama did to start his presidency (think about that for a second).

And note that about 83% of federal government spending is "fixed". Which means you can't really change it without a new law from congress. That includes social security/pensions (26%), medicare/medicaid (27%), defense (22%) and Interest (8%). And most of the 3-5% growth in federal spending is based on inflation in those "fixed" sectors.

This is a great website to dig into the numbers (especially adding TOTAL taxation and TOTAL spending across all forms of government: state, local AND federal):

https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

 

[ark steel]

They also won't acknowledge the fact of how they spent like drunken sailors on shore leave while having a vetoproof majority during both the Reagan and Bush 41 presidency.

As a former drunken sailor, i am appalled to be compared to such wastes of space.

 

[Stryker]

Del, I thought most of our taxes pay down the interest owed to the Fed.

I don't care much for Obama's politics, but what he did during the recession to stop this country from going into a full blown depression is pretty impressive. As a fiscal conservative, I'd rather the companies failed, so smaller companies could absorb all of that debt, but there would have been a much larger depression before the debt was reassessed. Economically, it did cost a ton of money to avoid depression, but you weigh that amount spent by the government against what could have been an economic collapse, and it was a successful strategy in the short term.

To argue about the amount spent after the fact is a first world problem.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

Del, I thought most of our taxes pay down the interest owed to the Fed.

I don't care much for Obama's politics, but what he did during the recession to stop this country from going into a full blown depression is pretty impressive. As a fiscal conservative, I'd rather the companies failed, so smaller companies could absorb all of that debt, but there would have been a much larger depression before the debt was reassessed. Economically, it did cost a ton of money to avoid depression, but you weigh that amount spent by the government against what could have been an economic collapse, and it was a successful strategy in the short term.

To argue about the amount spent after the fact is a first world problem.

What is impressive about bailing out private enterprises with tax money? That is the easiest thing to do.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

What is impressive about bailing out private enterprises with tax money? That is the easiest thing to do.

Fascist!

 

[deljzc]

Del, I thought most of our taxes pay down the interest owed to the Fed.

I don't care much for Obama's politics, but what he did during the recession to stop this country from going into a full blown depression is pretty impressive. As a fiscal conservative, I'd rather the companies failed, so smaller companies could absorb all of that debt, but there would have been a much larger depression before the debt was reassessed. Economically, it did cost a ton of money to avoid depression, but you weigh that amount spent by the government against what could have been an economic collapse, and it was a successful strategy in the short term.

To argue about the amount spent after the fact is a first world problem.

In my opinion there could have been more bang for the buck. I don't doubt we had to borrow our way out of the recession but the returns were not as great as some in the media (in there every effort to make Obama look good) made it out to be.

Just my opinion I guess.

 

[ark steel]

In my opinion there could have been more bang for the buck. I don't doubt we had to borrow our way out of the recession but the returns were not as great as some in the media (in there every effort to make Obama look good) made it out to be.

Just my opinion I guess.

This is true, not just your opinion.

In any event, IMLTHO, going back to the W bailouts, if those companies would have been allowed to fail, properly, we would have been hit, and hit hard. However, the result would have been a better recovery and going forward, the private companies know they are on their own if they **** up. Now? Getting to big to fail and being risky has not downside. W did BS with his bailout, the Obama spending was ludicrous with too poor of a return.

 

[CharlesDavenport]

The biggest bang for your buck that you get with tax money is to not confiscate it in the first place.

 

[Stryker]

What is impressive about bailing out private enterprises with tax money? That is the easiest thing to do.

I suppose both sides probably would have bailed out the banks, but it was done under the side that I wouldn't have expected to do it. No matter what, it was the decision made to avoid depression, and I can't fault the outcome.

 

[Stryker]

The biggest bang for your buck that you get with tax money is to not confiscate it in the first place.

We never needed it before we stopped printing our own money. 1914's holiday congress saw to the tax heist.