its amazing how debt is only ever brought up during democratic regimes… when the dems are in power its 'oh noes all the debt, whatever will we do! must cancel all social programs and increase military!"
but when conservatives are in charge, the debt does not exist , and its time for tax cuts for rich people, and expanding the military.
I’m generally on the “money isn’t real and debt is just one of a myriad of excuses that dems use to not do something,” but even in marxist economics, “national debt” isn’t able to increase forever without collapsing the monetary system. I don’t know the full effects of that occurring, but I’m sure that the people benefiting from it right now, will be the least affected by the monetary system collapsing.
the US can only keep themselves ‘rich’ because they own the global currency
And now we’re seeing countries increasingly moving away from the dollar which directly shrinks the size of the financial system US controls.
and the us populace is the one paying for that.
that’s how empires implode
Oh no, the United States may one day have to repay a debt measured in United States dollars, whatever shall we do
print more money and devalue the currency obviously
Oh, don’t you worry about that. The Fed can print infinite amounts of cash.
They can, but the issue is that increasingly larger portion of the budget is allocated to debt payments reducing overall operating budget.
The national debt has always been an imaginary bugbear. When compared against rates of inflation and the increasing gross tax revenue–it’s been a while since I’ve run these numbers–the national debt amounts to something similar to a car loan. It would take about five years to pay off and that chunk of it does get paid off. In those intervening five years, the nation acquires another “car-loan” of debt proportional to the rate of inflation and the rate of increasing tax revenue.
This analysis isn’t considering the trustworthiness of the United States’ credit. That’s another conversation.
so this is Reagan’s fault?
