[expat_panama]

This piece (my guess) was written in no small part becuase of Trump's answers in a Post intervew a few weeks ago:  Transcript: Donald Trump interview with Bob Woodward and Robert Costa  where he said

DT: ...We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt.

BW: How long would that take?

DT:  I think I could do it fairly quickly, because of the fact the numbers . . .  .

BW: What’s fairly quickly?

DT:  Well, I would say over a period of eight years.

At first I wanted to avoid saying Trump was spouting like an idiot but then I caught the fact he didn't say he would do it, or even that he should do it, but only that he could do it.  I could too, just double everyone's taxes.  No luck, later this came up:

BW: Would you ever be open to tax increases as part of that, to solve the problem?

DT: I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.

BW: That would be $2 trillion a year.

DT: No, but I’m renegotiating all of our deals, Bob.

--which makes no sense at all because private trade is private money, not government money. 

 

NP, w/ those of his followers that don't know the difference between the  federal and the trade deficit.

However the big gap in the Post article (imho) is their lack of money/math savvy, that if we say every American owes $19,196,769,313,019.68 (from here) ÷ 318.9 million (from here) = $60,196.83, then we can also equally divide the total $128T in federal land, structures, bonds, oil rights, yada yada.

Then again, why bother.  Total private wealth in the U.S. is over $86T so why worry about owing $60k if you got $272K in the bank?

[disndat]

All I know about the national debt is it is about 3 light years ahead of us.

[Gaffer]

America living from paycheck to paycheck (i.e., Treasury Department tax receipts, debt selling in T bills, et al) and ever increasing entitlement commitments coupled with minimal debt service are NOTHING to worry about. If it is, that’s a problem for our grandchildren, right?

[Michael.SF.]

I recall candidate Obama calling Bush irresponsible and unpatriotic because he increased the debt.

[Eric Pode of Croydon]

After eight years of DJT just oozing his sheer awesome Trumpishness all over the national debt, the debt will just give up and poof! out of existence.

And if that doesn't work, we'll build a wall around the debt so it never bothers us again. And we'll make the debt pay to build the wall!

[ChildOfThe60s]

1- It is mathematically impossible to clear the debt without reneging on most of it.

2- The majority of people in the US are so ignorant that they couldn’t tell you the difference between the debt and the deficit.

3- If you take cash advances on your MasterCard to make the minimum payments on your Visa card, most people would say you are in deep guano. When the government borrows money to pay the interest on existing debt, we are told it’s good for the economy, nothing to worry about.

[Reagan Disciple]

For being the smartest businessman to ever live he’s a total moron when it comes to basic economics.

[ctdonath2]

Federal debt service cost is 20% of revenue, and rising. Double interest rates, and that goes to 40%. The greater three debt, the greater those payments. The greater that percentage, the greater the debt and the faster that percentage grows. That’s payments which MUST be made on time. When it hits 100% you’re completely bankrupt.

10% is ok.
25% is time to seriously start paying it down.
50% is serious austerity budget time (which you should have been OB anyway).
75% is oh $#!^.
100% is financial collapse. You can’t even meet interest payments; borrowing to pay interest doesn’t work.

[lepton]

Revenue vs obligations is a very meaningful argument.

How much would the obligations go up just from interest rates approaching historical norms?

What happens if interest rates continue to be artificially low?

What happens to the stock market once there are significant investment alternatives?

What does THAT do to the economy?

[JPJones]

“#1) The federal government’s books are not like a family’s finances “

I’m so sick of patronizing articles like this.

The fedgov’s books are a corrupt sham.

Our children won’t have the prosperity we had, and our grandchildren will be impoverished.

And it’s the fedgov’s fault.

[smokingfrog]

[kabar]

We owe $19 trillion but that doesn't include the over $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, i.e., the entitlement programs. And what happens when interest rates return to normal levels and our debt servicing costs soar consuming even more of the federal budget. The entitlement programs, other mandatories like Medicaid, food stamps, etc, and debt servicing costs consume more than two thirds of the budget now. Those costs will go up as the population of those over 65 doubles over the next 15 years.

[joshua c]

The govt debt should be called what it actually is:

Deferred Taxes

[JimRed]

At the very least, you probably want your elected representatives in Washington to spend within their means...

There is a law on the books that states that the Federal government can not spend more than it takes in. This law was adopted in 1981, Public Law 95-435, Section 7. It's still valid, so why do our elected officials in Congress not obey that law?

That raises a number of other questions. Is there a penalty clause for violations of the law? Can every politician who voted in favor of violating the law be punished? Is a violation a misdemeanor or a felony? Who would be in charge of prosecuting the offenders?

We the people are expected to obey the law; why won't we hold our servants (who have, regrettably, morphed into masters) to the same standard?

Finally, since the law is already being ignored, what makes us think that an amendment would not also be ignored? The Second Amendment being a prime example in New Jersey; what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

Note: Part of this was lifted from another FReeper's commentary and I rewrote it in the form of a letter to the editor. If I remembered who, I'd give credit.

[Will88]

What a load of BS. The national debt is important enough that the Fed and our government have driven interest rates as low as they dare in order to keep the interest on the national debt as low as possible. And, of course, that self-serving government action has reduced the returns available to tens of millions of small savers in the US to almost nothing.

Small savers are being forced to help bail out big spending government and careless investment firms and banks. If interest were around historical levels of the past 50 or so years, the interest on the debt will be a cool trillion per year in the federal budget.

[CodeToad]

A bunch of nonsense from an idiot.

If debt were so great let’s take it to $100 zillion dollars! Everyone lives for freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Regulator]

A bunch of absurd BS trying to justify national bankruptcy

[P.O.E.]

All I know is my Social Security is being delayed by a year-and-a-half (and the delay is growing) because politicians spent my money buying votes for themselves.

[Jack Hydrazine]

“100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt ... all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.”
-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan - January 15, 1984

http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9044/m1/1/high_res_d/IP0281G.pdf

[mountn man]

Let's raise the minimum wage to $50 an hour...

Then we could pay down the $19 Trillion faster

[Vendome]

So, Brill Krinton balancing the budget was a one off and not beneficial to our America?

And yes, I understand that was accomplished under “The Contract with America”, sheperded by Newt.

What next, more people living on welfare is beneficial to our economy?