At what expense exactly? Debt-free people?? The average debt per individual now comes in at around $103,420, based on the current national debt. How's that for being "debt-free"? Also, doesn't it feel better to be able to pay your own way in life as opposed to others helping to bail you out? We put so much emphasis on college education, but a good number of decent paying entry-level jobs do not require a background in college. Maybe perhaps instead of pushing college on every young person, maybe look into some other viable alternatives, like online learning platforms that offer structured curriculums and acknowledged certifications at a fraction of the price?

Nearly sixty-percent of the adult American population disapprove of the way Biden is handling things, compared to the thirty-six percent that do approve, which means a good number of Democrats must also be unhappy with the current President. And somehow I doubt Biden's recent move on student loan relief will help much any in boosting his approval rating.

@SpikeTalon and that debt, other than student loan debt, is mostly homes and cars, as I noted above.

@annewimsey500 The debt figure I quoted was based on an average calculated from the current national debt amount.

Or better yet... sticking to more fiscally reasonable budgets. The National Debt is nearing $35 trillion, and while that $25-35 billion amount you quoted above would knock out a nice amount, I fear it won't do nearly enough against trillions of dollars of debt. The current largest budget items according to US Debt Clock.org are Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, and interest on debt. We can't tax our way out of this mess either.

As of November 2022, billionaires in our country have a combined value of around $4.48 trillion. Hypothetically speaking, if we were to somehow be able to confiscate all of that wealth and put it towards reducing the National Debt, at the current rate Government spends per year there would be enough funding for about 9-10 months in the fiscal year. Please also keep in mind that sort of scenario would be a one-time deal, once that money got used up it's back to square one. That tells me that we can't tax our way out of that as some politicians had suggested.

As of April 2024, the Biden Administration has increased the National Debt by $6.17 trillion, and Biden's term is not even finished. Trump did contribute $8.18 trillion to the mess, though experts suggest that a good portion of that was due to stimulus spending for the Covid pandemic. Under the Obama Administration, the debt grew the most in dollar terms ($8.6 trillion). On the other hand, it's worth mentioning that should Trump secure a second term as President, he will most likely surpass Obama's figures. The same can be said for Biden if he wins a second term. Obama and Clinton weren't much better than the clowns you mentioned above, and the former of the two extended Bush Jr-era tax breaks (regardless if he really wanted to or not, he still did it). There were also tax breaks under Clinton.
[cbsnews.com]

Neither increasing taxes or tax breaks are the longterm solution to that problem. Both political extremes will need to learn to work together in order to make it work, and compromise a bit. If we could craft more fiscally reasonable budgets, more funding would not necessarily be required, while wasteful spending would be diminished and then maybe perhaps the people wouldn't feel like they need another tax break, as not as many of our tax dollars would get wasted to begin with.

If they were alive today, the Founding Fathers would be appalled at what the Federal Government has become, and the amount of tax dollars that go to waste while accruing an inordinate amount of national debt. I rather doubt that's how they had envisioned the Government to work. If you don't spend any money, you can't go into debt then. Spending is the problem, out of control spending at that.

A correction $25-$35 trillion.

@SpikeTalon FDR proved that we could spend our way out of debt, Government is not a business so business rules don't apply, The only time in history (Andrew Jackson) that the US ever eliminated its national debt, it was plunged into the worst depression in all of its history. The US has been the world reserve currency since the 1970s which gives it a unique spot world economics. A revamp of the US tax code back to the Eisenhower era, would give a 10 year map to fiscal equilibrium. A national debt of 10% of GDP to bolster US investment, plenty of funding for all the other programs that no one is willing to cut. Go back to funding education, roads, bridges, harbors, air ports and hospitals. Make healthcare non-profit like before Reagan,

@glennlab The only thing FDR proved was that you could push debt down the road long enough for the future generations to handle so the problem does not have to be dealt with as much in the present moment. While the New Deal may have helped to alleviate some of the economic hardships of the Great Depression and had provided jobs for many Americans, it did not completely eliminate the national debt. The idea that a government can spend its way out of debt is a complex economic concept with differing viewpoints among economic experts. Some may argue that strategic government spending like that during times of economic downturn can stimulate growth and eventually lead to increased tax revenues, which in turn could help reduce the debt over the long term, while others believe that excessive government spending can lead to inflation and other economic challenges that may outweigh the benefits. As things currently stand, I see the latter happening.

In the case of FDR and his New Deal, while the spending did have (temporary) positive effects on the economy, it did not completely eliminate the national debt. The effectiveness of government spending in reducing debt depends on various factors, including current economic context, the types of spending, and how it is financed. Government may not be a business, but it's also not a charity either.

I am not suggesting it's absolutely necessary to eliminate all of the national debt, I am only suggesting we work to lower it. The country going into debt need not have to be a bad thing, assuming we get something of value in return for going into debt. That's what I question though, and don't think we are getting enough value for the amount of debt the country is going into. I get the impression the older generations are not taking this seriously enough when the current working-age generations raise concerns over sustainability.

As for the funding parts go, I have my reservations on that much. We have already poured loads of money into infrastructure and education, and while I could agree on funding for the former I do not feel the same way about the latter one there. Discussing the shortcomings would warrant its own post, so as to go into deeper details. Had wanted to comment on a few of your posts that brought up those topics, if I can find them again that is. When it comes to the public education system, I could give a more recent perspective on that landscape, whereas a good majority of those on this site who often comment on that matter have been removed from public education for a number of decades compared to my two decades removed from the system.

As for the last part, healthcare in the US has always been a mixture of for-profit and non-profit entities. Tax-exempt status of non-profit hospitals dates back to at least the early 20th century. The healthcare landscape has evolved over time, and Reagan had implemented policies that influenced the healthcare industry in various ways, some good and some not so good. A strong argument could be made that Reagan's move to a more free-market healthcare system eventually led to considerable improvements in health-related outcomes such as improved medical technology and longer span of life for the average American citizen. Healthcare is a business precisely because it renders services to the people, and you said it yourself that Government is not a business, and does not belong getting involved in such. That said, desiring that sort of outcome (having Government involved in healthcare) is noble, a seemingly kind thing to do, but not practical on a large scale I suspect.

@SpikeTalon Govt spending is not a business and should be seen as an investment. Nearly 100 years later we are still benefiting from the New Deal projects WPA and CCC. It was the war that drove the debt up and the need to pay off the war supplies that were just made and destroyed. A vast majority of US airports are former SAC bases, that were seen as boondoggles in their day, but that planning has made sure that in 2024 we can get to any major city in the US quickly. The interstate highway system was built to be able to move troops and material easily in any direction, today it speeds interstate and international commerce. The civil reserve air fleet, a public private partnership between the military and civilian airlines to move troops and material during times of heightened alert (Iraq twice, Vietnam,) has allowed smaller airlines to enter the market by pledging their aircraft and receiving a subsidy. I could go on.

You forget that the vast wealth of the nation rests not in its individuals but in its corporations. we have a GDP of >$23 trillion,value of non financial corp >$36 trillion, and financial corp >$12 trillion. Individual taxes are a drop in the bucket. Corporate taxes should make up30-40% of all tax revenue instead of 6 % as is the current case. 45% comes from individuals.

When I say the wealthy should pay there fair share, the corporations are the wealthy. The Tax reform act of 1986 lowered the top tax rate from 50 to 28 and RAISED the lowest tax rate from 11 to 15. It also created more loopholes than swiss cheese. Retirement plans that previously received preferential tax treatment were fully taxed and Social Security was taxed for the first time ever to pay for the rich getting their tax breaks.

Nothing short of a Tax rewrite on the scale of the 1954 IRC would correct all of the deficiencies of the current tax code

@SpikeTalon Forgot to reply to your medical area. Prior to 1981, it was illegal to have a for profit health insurance company or hospital. Research was funded and conducted by the govt. (Universities, USHS, CDC, etc) We had one of the highest levels of care in the world and exported it to the world. Today we have to import doctors from Asia, Africa, and South America. Free market healthcare lead to $25,000 interferon a drug that costs a few hundred to make, $2000 insulin a drug that costs <$5 to make, $300 inhalers another drug combo that costs <$5 to make. Tell me again how a totally free market in a basic necessity makes any sense. Right now the hedge funds control the hospitals and the banks control the medical insurance industry, both need to be eliminated from their positions.

@glennlab Government spending can be considered an investment in the sense that it is used to fund projects and programs that are expected to yield long-term benefits for society. Investments in areas such as infrastructure, education, healthcare, and research and development can lead to economic growth, improved quality of life, and increased competitiveness. However, it is important for governments to carefully evaluate and prioritize their spending to ensure that it is being used effectively and efficiently to achieve the desired outcomes. With that in mind, not everyone will agree with the conclusion that Government should not be considered an investment, when clearly we the people are making an investment via the funding of certain programs intended to improve society as a whole.

At the moment we may be (somewhat) benefitting from New Deal policies, but what about down the road for future generations? The present time is not the only thing that needs to be considered, the future needs to be considered as well, and some financial experts do not share in such an optimistic outlook regarding the future of certain Government programs.

You are focusing only on war being the main cause of driving up the debt, but that only factors part way into the equation. In reality, defense spending (wars) along with social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare, and corporate welfare (aka, crony capitalism) have played a big role in increasing the national debt. As the current budget stands, Medicare comes in at being the largest expense at around $1.7 trillion, followed by Social Security at $1.4 trillion, and defense spending at $900 billion.

So, you believe the only way we possibly could have gotten accomplishments like the interstate highway system was via the Government? Isn't that a rather limited outlook on the matter? I'm sure we could have accomplished the same result from a privatized entity as well. Also, how Government handles infrastructure repair/upgrades is questionable. I don't know how things are on that matter in Texas, but here in Pennsylvania we literally get made fun of by neighboring states over the poor conditions of our roads, and over the years I've personally known a number of fellow Pennsylvanians who had questioned where all of their tax dollars are going that was supposedly meant to improve the roads? It takes forever for the state to properly fix the roads, and when they do so often times it's a half-assed job that results in potholes appearing in as little time as a few months. How could that sort of thing be considered actual progress? Not to mention the seasonal problems that often arise when it comes to state plow trucks removing snow... we consistently receive flyers in the mail gently reminding us not to flip out on the plow truck drivers if they push snow on someone's property, a problem that I suspect is far greater than most realize it is. Private entities could hardly do a worse job than that, and with a private entity would mean more direct accountability for any poor jobs rendered, and the same could not be said of the state.

Comparing individual tax percentages paid against corporate taxes can be complex and may not always provide a clear picture of fairness. There are several factors to consider...
Tax Structures- Individuals and corporations are subject to different tax structures, deductions, credits, and loopholes. This can impact the effective tax rates paid by each group.
Income Disparities- Individuals have varying income levels, while corporations vary in profitability. Comparing the tax contributions of individuals to corporations may not account for these disparities.
Tax Avoidance- Corporations often have more opportunities to engage in tax planning and avoidance strategies compared to individuals. This can result in disparities in effective tax rates.
Economic Impact- Corporate taxes can influence business decisions, such as investment, hiring, and even location choices. High corporate taxes could potentially impact economic growth and job creation. Also, there are far more individual citizens than corporate entities. Those factors considered, a simplistic comparison of individual tax percentages against corporate taxes may not be considering the full complexity of the tax system and its implications.

The percentage of federal tax revenue coming from individuals can vary based on individual income levels. In our country, the federal tax system is progressive, meaning that tax rates increase as income levels rise. This means that higher-income individuals pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes compared to lower-income individuals. Individual income taxes are indeed the largest single source of federal revenue, with higher-income individuals contributing a significant portion of that revenue. On the other hand, corporate taxes are paid by businesses based on their profits. individual taxes and corporate taxes serve different purposes and are structured differently, and should not be directly compared to one another. The current corporate tax rate is a flat 21%, while personal income tax rates vary from 10-37% depending on a person's taxable income. You are correct in saying that the vast wealth of the nation comes from the corporations, and I haven't forgotten about that, and I also know that yearly corporations pay at least $200 billion in taxes. That's not necessarily a small amount, but appears to be so though compared to how much the Federal Government spends in a year.

I can agree that the tax code itself needs to be reformed, but still contend that more taxes are not the long-term solution to that problem. No checks on Government spending is the problem.

As for your claim on it being illegal to have for-profit healthcare prior to 1981 (think you may have meant 1973 there instead of 1981), that's false. To save me the time of having to go into details, I'll just link to the fact checkers. [snopes.com]

[api.politifact.com]

Where did you get that one from anyways, Occupy Democrats? Speaking of which, they are not exactly a reliable source for factual information- [mediabiasfactcheck.com]

Governmental regulations have and continue to play a significant role in the pricing of drugs here in the US, and free markets could hardly be blamed for Governmental red tape. For example, the FDA Approval Process. The Food and Drug Administration regulates the approval of new drugs in the USA. The process of getting a drug approved can be lengthy and costly, as companies must conduct clinical trials to demonstrate the safety and efficacy of the drug. These costs are often passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Another example would be Medicare/Medicaid pricing, the government plays a role in setting prices for drugs covered by Medicaid and Medicare. Pharmaceutical companies are required to provide discounts to these programs, which in turn could raise prices on other drugs due to lost profits. Research and development costs are another point to take into consideration, and if such costs were spread to more of a global market, US drug costs may decrease, and other markets may have increased costs to balance that out. The price of insulin, while on the rise over the past two decades or so, often times gets overestimated, and even Biden got called out on his estimates. A good number of those who are on insulin and struggling to afford it, are those without any healthcare coverage, for whatever personal reason they may have for not having healthcare coverage, which is curious given how Obamacare was supposed to help so many people. My own healthcare coverage would probably not be considered the best around, yet insulin price for me is not extreme as some make it out to be. Remember, insulin dosages vary from person to person, and I suspect at least some of the times when there's a situation where a diabetic individual got really sick or died due to not having (enough) insulin, poor personal choices may have factored into that. Some years back a family friend died from complications of type 1 diabetes, but it wasn't because he couldn't afford insulin, it was due to him making poor personal choices, and that sort of thing is what I suspect all too often gets overlooked in favor of the insulin affordability argument, and all possible scenarios should be taken into equal consideration. I digress, as insulin affordability is a topic that would warrant its own post, and this reply is already getting longer than I anticipated. Suffice to say, I beg to differ on that argument, as someone who is on insulin himself and knows the cost of it.

You asked "tell me again how a totally free market in a basic necessity makes any sense." The US healthcare system is not strictly free market-based though, nor ever was, nor will it likely ever be at this point. The healthcare system in the US is a combination of free market elements and government involvement. It can be described as a mixed system where both private and public entities play a role. The government is involved through programs like Medicare and Medicaid, as well as regulations such as the Affordable Care Act. Of course, private insurance companies and healthcare providers also operate within the system, creating a blend of market forces and government intervention. No external forces should be able to control the hospitals (or banks for that matter), and replacing such entities with the Government will only put the power of monopoly in the hands of Government then. In recent years, about last five or so, the healthcare industry in our country has and continues to face a workforce crisis, there's a shortage of physicians and nurses, and that shortage is predicted to only get worse. Aside from the usual burnout and emotional stress along with retirement, healthcare professionals cited a government requirement to maintain minimum staffing ratios, which some say that regulation is nearly impossible to comply with. To those who think healthcare is some sort of right and not a service to be rendered and paid for, I'm curious if they'll continue to believe more of the same if and when the healthcare worker shortage crisis ever gets to a point where the supply will no longer be able to keep pace with the demand, and there are so few left to practice in that field? What will we do at that point? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to, I'm just wondering that much out loud is all. I'm sure they'll levy blame against the free market system, even though where healthcare in the country is concerned there is a mixture of free market influence and government intervention. My one neighbor is on Medicaid due to being unemployed for an extended amount of time, and my elderly mother has long since been on Medicare, and both of them have experienced getting appointments canceled with no reason attached. Funny how that sort of thing has yet to occur with my private insurer.

That all said, I'm kinda content with having such a mixture, as that kind of setup might keep both of them in check at least somewhat, so no one agenda trumps the other one's. As long as I get the choice of private insurance, I can live with there being a Governmental influence as well. Government can't even find an amicable way to keep our infrastructure updated, why the bloody hell would I trust them with my healthcare.

@SpikeTalon Your SS and medicare numbers are misleading, while the expenditure is indeed $1.3 trillion, the income of designated funds is also $1.3 trillion or a net zero for budget purposes. [ssa.gov].

@SpikeTalon You published a book, I don't have the time or energy since you keep expanding on points. I took a masters level course on Government spending, so most of my references come from memory not look ups on the internet. I have been known to be wrong and will readily admit it when i am , like 1981 vs 1973, I mixed up Reagan and Nixon.

@SpikeTalon As far as the new Deal goes, i think we still get power from the Bonneville dam and fly out of Lagardia Airport as well as the millions of trees that were planted across our country, The WPA, PWA, CCC, all gave us long term projects that we still enjoy today. One is across the street from me. When they updated it for erosion control, the 80 year old government built facilities had not significantly deteriorated, but within 2 years our fine private contractor built facilities had to have major repairs. Not a reqlly good use of funds, I'd say.

@SpikeTalon As far as the interstate highway system, all you have to do is look at our experience with the railroads.

@glennlab The link you supplied didn't work, led to error page. I think you're right about that though, and can't remember the site I got that info from and forgot to copy the link to it. Think those were dated estimates, and more recent figures I came across indicated that Social Security currently has the top spot on largest budget items, followed by net interest on the debt, and then defense spending with Medicare following closely behind. Regardless of which of those could claim the top highest budget spot, apparently all of them are contributing to the national debt, and the mere fact that net interest on the debt has overtaken defense spending could not possibly be a good thing. I had some other links archived that I think could provide better statistics, but at the moment I don't have the spare time to go through all of them.

You made the choice to comment on one of my posts, and would think you should know by now that when it comes to political discussions I tend to be long-winded when explaining my viewpoints. All good though, I understand and actually don't have alot of spare time myself, and surprising that I found the time to reply as I did, takes time to type all of this out. When someone comments on my posts, such as you did, I assume that means you're open to extended discussion, which would (maybe) mean expanding on certain points. A number of good sources available nowadays on the Net to lookup information, if one knows where to look. While not masters level courses, aside from my cybersecurity/IT studies I am also taking/in process of taking courses on economics and American politics, and while the certifications I may get afterwards wouldn't equate to a masters the courses in question are instructed by professors from respected and well known higher education institutions from around the world.

I've long contended that the New Deal had/has a mixture of positive and negative points, and all potential points should be taken into equal consideration. Off the top of my head, one positive point of the ND would have been the creation of jobs through public works projects. Not sure how longterm said jobs were though, but jobs were certainly created. One negative point would be just how effective some of the social safety nets will be many decades down the road, and how effective their policies would be.

As for the last reply, I really don't think it matters who was responsible for constructing the interstates (or even railroads), as both public and privatized entities would be prone to the same human shortcomings. All I'm saying there is, that both options should be considered evenly, and when one or the other is underperforming in any way it might be time to look into an alternative. Or, instead of just one or the other doing the job, dare I suggest the public and private sectors work together in order to arrive to longterm solutions to societal issues?

@SpikeTalon You missed my point on SS, its spending and allocated taxes are equal, it does not now nor has ever contributed to the national debt, in fact the trust fund still has $2.9Trillion in reserve. The WPA and CCC were both intended as short term make work programs while the PWA was intended as a long term solution to government projects. You are right that there were good and bad that came out of the New Deal. In the case of the interstate system, it was a public private partnership, but the government did the master planning , much like current major maintenance on roads.

@glennlab I didn't miss your point, and the sources I've come across would indicate a different story-
[politifact.com]

[usatoday.com]

[politifact.com]

[thedispatch.com]

Social Security can contribute to national debt in less obvious ways through the following...

Trust Fund Investments: The Social Security Trust Fund invests its surplus funds in special issue Treasury securities. When the government needs to redeem these securities to pay Social Security benefits, it can contribute to the national debt if the government doesn't have enough revenue to cover these redemptions.

Interest on Trust Fund Securities: If the government needs to borrow money to pay interest on the Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund, this can add to the national debt.

Demographic Shifts: As the population ages and the number of retirees receiving benefits increases relative to the number of workers paying into the system, the strain on the Social Security system can lead to increased government borrowing to fund benefits, potentially adding to the national debt.

Budgetary Impact: If Social Security spending exceeds the revenue collected from payroll taxes, the government may need to borrow money to cover the shortfall, contributing to the national debt.

While Social Security itself is funded through payroll taxes and its own trust fund, the interplay between Social Security, government borrowing, and the broader economy can have indirect effects on the national debt, and that should be taken into consideration. The trust fund is predicted to go dry sometime between 2033-2035, after which SS could be in serious jeopardy, and that will almost surely occur if reforms are not made real soon. To claim that SS could never somehow add to the national debt is to overlook lesser obvious and or indirect ways it could do so, and since 2010 SS has run an annual deficit, which also should not get overlooked.

@SpikeTalon You are falling for the smoke and mirrors that date back to the Nixon administration. The debt that SS is contributing to is from money borrowed from it in the past. Nixon borrowed from the SS fund and used the monies to prop up the stock market. That is the reason that SS can only invest in treasuries. He gave the Wall Street banks IRAs to make up for the lost revenue as well as legalizing the trading and possession of gold. eliminating SS would have next to zero effect on the debt. there is a net of $41 billion difference between income and outgo.
Bush pulled funds from the SS trust fund to fund tax cuts and the Iraq war. So it is not social security adding to the debt, but the republican war machine, just deferred.

All of your possible impact are can/may, not do. There does need to be a change made to SS, but the trust fund was scheduled to be depleted by 2036 roughly 100 years after the parents of the baby boomers were born. We paid for our parents retirement and our own, Expand all earned income to SS tax and the fund should never deplete.

The answer to demographic shifts is the same as it has always been allow enough qualified immigration of working age persons to prop up the numbers.

As far as SS running a deficit since 2010, that was planned, in 1980. There had been a multi year bi-partisan commission that made proposals to postpone any major problems to 40-50 years in the future when there would be less political strife (lol). The 1983 SS act would fit into that 50 year deferment perfectly.

@glennlab You are saying one thing, while the fact checkers are saying something else, so who exactly should I believe here? You are correct that legally speaking SS does not directly borrow money in which could directly contribute to the national debt, but that's only considering the direct factor, and think the sources I cited made valid points regarding potential indirect factors, which is what led them to determine that claim was mostly false. Evidence that I've come across indicated that the money borrowed is from both the past and present times.

While the Bush Jr. Administration undoubtedly contributed alot to the national debt, context is missing from that argument-
[politifact.com]

I agree on the immigration part there as that scenario could surely help to fill the gaps, but I could find no hard evidence as to your claim that SS running a deficit starting in 2010 was an orchestrated event, dating back to the early 1980s. For argument's sake for a moment, let's say your claim there is indeed an accurate description... maybe that should give us all more pause for thought if SS was even the solution FDR made it out to be, as lasting only 100 years or so could hardly be considered a long term solution? Maybe that sort of thing is a sign that we could have come up with a better plan, one of which that could last for at least a few centuries?

That aside, at this point think it's safe to say we both (admittedly, I may have played a larger role in all that) kind of wandered away from the original talking point in this post. You don't have to answer this if you don't wish, but just thought I'd ask... what's your take on President Biden's recent student loan forgiveness plan?
[usatoday.com]

I think making any sort of move that could put the country deeper into debt is bound to piss off alot of people.

Good to see that you guys are taking an interest in the US debt. So what would be your opinion about a POTUS that increased it by 25%? You would never even consider letting such an idiot near the White House again right?

@273kelvin Indeed... and that's why neither of the two primary candidates are qualified in my opinion. We need a third-party option.

@SpikeTalon Trump is definitely preferable over Biden!

@Trajan61 Oh I see, the debt is important to you but only when you think you can bash Biden with it. When the fact that Trump was a far worse administrator of the debt then shown then it is "Move along now, nothing to see here"
It seems to me that there is logic or fact that will move you from your preconceived ideas. Much in the way we get so annoyed with theists.

I agree!

Well said, and same here. Never had nor asked for someone else to fund my further education. We need to start asking more if college background is even necessary for certain jobs? These kids are putting themselves into debt, and what for exactly? I imagine there's a number of careers out there in which a college education would not be necessary. So maybe instead of forgiving college debt, we should maybe be suggesting alternatives to college.