> Entire countries default fairly often, the USA is no exception if such a fate befalls us. We've already had our security ratings dropped once before.
The funny thing about this is how little happens to them when they do. Like Argentina's supposed to be the worst case scenario? The country best known for eating a lot of beef? You don't see them being sold to Brazil or anything.
> These crazy numbers must be balanced sooner or later, and the costs to do so will be cheaper the sooner we do it. Every single part of the government needs to be cut and likely in most cases eliminated outright, that includes Social Security and Medicare and the military.
Even if you want to be a heartless economic optimizer, your goal should be aiming to make the economy bigger. Making old people starve isn't going to do that. Neither is letting Russia conquer Alaska.
Austerity like this is European thinking - and its result is those are poor countries, whereas we're #1 because we don't do that.
> Meanwhile, we are $35.46 trillion dollars in debt.[2]
It's basically the current cost to us to borrow money. It's up a little, which does need to be dealt with, but it isn't historically high.
The way we should deal with it is a VAT or DBCFT. (And that's a Republican proposal from 2016.)
> The bottom line if we are borrowing money to make ends meet is: We. Do. Not. Have. Money.
We aren't borrowing money because we have to - we do it because it lets us sell bonds to other countries, which makes them subjects of the US financial empire; they have to use our banks. It's that global reserve currency thing.
(Technically, inflation is caused by the Fed, if you believe Milton Friedman. But printing money requires the Fed to raise interest rates to match. So either they raise interest rates and cause unemployment, or they don't raise them and cause inflation.)
The funny thing about this is how little happens to them when they do. Like Argentina's supposed to be the worst case scenario? The country best known for eating a lot of beef? You don't see them being sold to Brazil or anything.
> These crazy numbers must be balanced sooner or later, and the costs to do so will be cheaper the sooner we do it. Every single part of the government needs to be cut and likely in most cases eliminated outright, that includes Social Security and Medicare and the military.
Even if you want to be a heartless economic optimizer, your goal should be aiming to make the economy bigger. Making old people starve isn't going to do that. Neither is letting Russia conquer Alaska.
Austerity like this is European thinking - and its result is those are poor countries, whereas we're #1 because we don't do that.
> Meanwhile, we are $35.46 trillion dollars in debt.[2]
That's not the number that matters. You want this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
It's basically the current cost to us to borrow money. It's up a little, which does need to be dealt with, but it isn't historically high.
The way we should deal with it is a VAT or DBCFT. (And that's a Republican proposal from 2016.)
> The bottom line if we are borrowing money to make ends meet is: We. Do. Not. Have. Money.
We aren't borrowing money because we have to - we do it because it lets us sell bonds to other countries, which makes them subjects of the US financial empire; they have to use our banks. It's that global reserve currency thing.
But if we had to for some reason, we can simply create more money (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion-dollar_coin) or just order people to produce things (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Production_Act_of_1950). The cost to this is inflation, but that's a benefit if the alternative is deflation.
(Technically, inflation is caused by the Fed, if you believe Milton Friedman. But printing money requires the Fed to raise interest rates to match. So either they raise interest rates and cause unemployment, or they don't raise them and cause inflation.)