>Yes, the US government is going to pay off that debt. Which is why they were able to borrow it in the first place.
There may come a time when the interest on the debt becomes so out of control that it cannot be serviced, likely in conjunction with people dumping bonds and leaving interest rates soaring. Meaning, America's credit goes up in flames. We're obviously not there yet and maybe it will never happen. That said, remember when Trump backed off extreme levels of the "Liberation Day" tariffs? Real fears of bond-dumping seem to have a lot to do with the more measured (relatively-speaking) approach to tariffs we're now seeing. If debt holders dump the 10-year bonds enough, it causes real issues for debt repayment.
> If debt holders dump the 10-year bonds enough, it causes real issues for debt repayment.
No, it doesn't, it impacts future borrowing. Third time, before my blood pressure spikes: that is an argument about future debt. It being true (or not) has zero relevance to the current size of the debt. You could be right (or wrong) if we had zero outstanding debt, or if it was $70T.
Ergo, it's either an incorrect or bad faith analysis of the situation. The current debt (whatever its size happens to be in the fiction being spun) will be paid off at the bills' rates and on the statutory schedules. Period.
>The current debt (whatever its size happens to be in the fiction being spun) will be paid off at the bills' rates and on the statutory schedules. Period.
Your blood pressure issues notwithstanding, I don't think you believe that the US can possibly default or renege in any way on its debt, so there may not be a point in going on. History has run this experiment before and sovereign nations absolutely can default and/or renege on debt obligations. I certainly hope we don't see that in the case of the US. But I'm also not irrational enough to believe it's impossible.
Yeah, of course. But the argument is, at this future point, you must adjust policy to meet your obligations: either you can print more money, or you can cut services. But you must choose one or the other of those things.
The issue I think most people are correctly pointing out is that our current debt is unreasonable -- that it constrains our future policies way too much. Cutting services is effectively impossible in our politics, which leaves only inflation on the table. That's pretty much the same as default. That is where we're headed.
Anyone who owns US treasuries. That may be you. But I am sure many here own US debt. Institutions and sovereign entities own quite a bit. The US Social Security Trust Fund is a major holder as well.
“
Kirk went on to say, “And by the way, if some amazing patriot out there in San Francisco or the Bay Area wants to really be a midterm hero, someone should go and bail this guy out … Bail him out, and then go ask him some questions.”
"
One can argue that we're only seeing the beginning of the destruction. The economic policies of this administration could take years to be fully realized. That also means that, unfortunately, it will take years to repair the damage.
Yup. Even if Americans vote out the current administration, there’s no guarantee they won’t vote in another administration like this again. They’ve already done it twice.
We need, at the very least, to revoke "emergency" powers of the presidency, and we need to reinforce that Congressional action overrides executive whim.
The administrative state is a good thing, not a bad thing, and people like Steve Bannon are cancers on American success.
Ideally, we would also ban gerrymandering, revoke unlimited anonymous political spending, and implement ranked choice voting.
I think the contradiction required for this is 1) we need a strong, power concentrated leader to decisively correct the ship and prevent future abuses. 2) we then need the leader to voluntarily limit their powers.
There is nothing unusual about Americans here. Every democracy has the same worry, and always has. Every change in party has brought in instability, going right back to the founding of the country. Sometimes worse than others. Trump isn't that much different from some of the stupid things presidents were doing in the 1800s...
As someone who is just starting their proper adult life, the feeling of seeing the past's most bleak, extreme, "irrational" depression fuel resurface as today's level-headed, sensible predictions for the future is difficult to describe.
Has either the US or the EU ever promised not to retaliate against their enemy states or something? Actually, has any nation or national organization in the world ever promised that? You know, not to engage in war or any retaliation for anything? Just be arbitrarily 'fair'? You're creating standards that simply never existed. When war is on the table, all bets are off, it has always been that way.
Once you do what Russia did, no one should be required to honor anything with you. Countries are bound by laws, especially when you talk about Western countries, but there's always ways to get around to do what's needed if it's important enough - such as in military conflicts. If anything, the legal frameworks that tie their hands often prevented them from going even further, which would've been far better.
It also comes off incredibly disingenuous how lightly you're treating Russia here. You're pretending as if they just had an oopsie, a momentary lapse of judgement, a minor accidental misstep, and the heartless hypocrite West unfairly punished them for it by arbitrarily declaring them 'evil'. Like anyone else is scared because they might just stumble and that'll cause them to get on the West's bad side.
Unless you can think of other countries that are itching to start the new bloodiest, most cruel invasion of a sovereign nation on EU's doorstep, no one's situation mirrors Russia's. If they wanted the EU to sit idle, perhaps they shouldn't have invaded.
Not to mention that most (all?) of those assets haven't been seized. They were frozen (although the interest earned on them was seized by diverting it to Ukraine in some cases).
This downvote isn't a punishment, it's a way to help decrease the visibility of lies and missinformation.
Russia literally launched an aggressive war of conquest. Any response that doesn't involve literal soldiers occupying russian cities is an extremely minor one.
The manner in which Harris got the nomination, deciding at the convention, isn't atypical and was the norm in earlier American history. The party decides how this goes. There is nothing Constitutionally-mandated about how they do it.
There may come a time when the interest on the debt becomes so out of control that it cannot be serviced, likely in conjunction with people dumping bonds and leaving interest rates soaring. Meaning, America's credit goes up in flames. We're obviously not there yet and maybe it will never happen. That said, remember when Trump backed off extreme levels of the "Liberation Day" tariffs? Real fears of bond-dumping seem to have a lot to do with the more measured (relatively-speaking) approach to tariffs we're now seeing. If debt holders dump the 10-year bonds enough, it causes real issues for debt repayment.