Can the U.S. government reduce the national debt ?

Mall, thank you for accepting the debate. 

The U.S. has been enjoying the job growth and thriving economy by overcoming the side-effects of Covid-19 pandemic.  In particular, Green New Deal policy 

promoted by President Biden contributed to vitalizing the U.S. economy. However, we must pay attention to the growing national debt of the U.S. government 

year by year. The U.S. has been engaging in wars fought in the foreign countries like Vietnam, Iraq , Afganistan and in the Middle East to prevent the regional war 

from developing into more harmful, dangerous and dreadful wider war involving a powerful and anti-U.S. hegemonic country. 

As we know, the U.S. played an important role as a world policeman after World War 2.  To make this national object realize, the U.S. has been spending too much 

money in the military field.   As a result, this diplomatic and military policy caused the huge deficit of the federal government.

Amassing the debt makes difficult for the government to contribute to the welfare of the people.  The government is urged to reduce the budget for social welfare 

such as unemployment benefit, medical care , education and renovating the aging of social infrastructure which are important for all walks of life.

Already anger and disappointment toward the government are emerging from many people.

Therefore, the government must tackle for reducing the national debt for keeping sound and people-oriented country not the country for big business and military

companies. 

 The most important thing is that huge government deficit damages national economy and social vitality not only in the present time but for the future. 

 The U.S. government borrows huge amount of money from the public and many private banks.  Continuation of huge deficit makes very difficult for the government 

 to pay for interest for them.  So they hesitate to buy and hold Treasury securities.  This aggravates the debt level further. 

Unfortunately, in January 3, 2024 ``the federal government`s gross national debt has surpassed 34 trillion dollars, a record high that foreshadows the coming 

political and economic challenges to improve America`s balance sheet in the coming years.`` 1)  

As I pointed out before, spiraling debt brings serious impact and damage on the American economy.  At present ``investors are willing to lend the federal government money. This lending allows the government to keep spending on programs without having to raise taxes. But the debt`s path in the decades to come might put 

at risk national security and major programs, including Social Security and Medicare, which have become the most prominent drivers of forecasted government 

spending over the next few decades.  Government dysfunction, such as another debt limit showdown, could also be a financial risk if investors worry about 

lawmaker`s willingness to repay the U.S.debt.``2)     Amassing the huge government debt leads to the collapse of the government. 

So under this dire situation the U.S. government is urged to reduce the national debt from the long -term perspectives.  

But is it possible ?   Answer is `yes`.  The problem can be solved by reducing military spending.  Recently, U.S. president, Biden requested Japanese prime minister,

Kishida to increase military spending during the time of his official visit to the U.S. in April, 2024.  Kishida showed his intension of accepting military assistance for 

the U.S..  The U.S. expects too much that Japan`s cooperative attitude contributes to reducing the national debt of the U.S. government. 

Furthermore, the member countries of NATO will be requested to increase military budget to reduce the financial burden of the military expenditure of the U.S. at the 

same time.  From the arguments so far, I believe the U.S. government can reduce the national debt which is being projected to rise year by year. 

     References: 1), 2)  Fatima Hussein, Josh Boax, ` US national debt hits record 34 trillion dollars as Congress gears up for funding fight`,  (https://apnews.com.)     

The United States government cannot get out of debt,let alone reducing it.

Not only because you have individuals such as myself that'll continue to contribute to debt making the efforts of trying to reduce it futile, in order to get out of debt , the monetary system has to be done away with.

The monetary system is a debt system. In order to reduce debt, the monetary obligation in where money is obligated to be paid cannot exist. In other words zero cost. No pay obligation, no debt.

The less and less you have to pay for things, the less the liabilities.

The world let alone one country is in a vicious cycle of debt. The individual person is in debt unless not of sound mind, does not choose to go into debt.

People are born into a debt system. One thing leads to another by happenstance circumstances. Therefore a person, persons , a people, a governing body of people for the people cannot reduce debt.

They cannot reduce debt because other factors outside their control will continue the vicious cycle.

If they or anyone can reduce debt, they'd have the power and control not to be in debt or get in debt. It's outside factors that makes an entity go in debt or be free from, not the entity itself.

The debt system is a controlling system, a network host of all financial entities and economic users.

The opposing side mentioned about reducing debt from military costs basically.

If the U.S. had control over every other entity that could pose a threat , tear down buildings, start a war, then it be all up to them to get a hold of debt.

But if the U.S. is forced or pushed to continue to do what has to be done in the name of secretary of defense , the vicious cycle continues.

When there's more funding required than what tax revenue can cover, what do you do?

Raise the taxes . Then there are small net payouts requiring more government program assistance from what? Tax money. The very source touted to increase the margin to reduce debt .

A vicious cycle.

What about spending cuts?

The military was discussed. Is it affordable to cut costs on any other service?

Just curbing the cost wherever possible at this rate. That is until the next "push come to shove".  Which maybe right around the corner because of the higher tax mandates.

If no cuts can be affordable due to demand of domestic or international assistance, I guess the debt stays tied up in that.

Aside from that or without that , whenever the amount of funding that is needed for all investments, subsidies, national emergencies, new programs and grants, will it be possible for the U.S. government to have an unlimited source of funding for whatever restoration after a natural disaster, pandemic, outbreak, any other issue that arises beyond control that they don't have to borrow for, seek foreign aid, a solution perhaps only native outside the country that they will have to go in debt to receive?

When can global assistance go off the table?

When social assistance will. A functioning society is dependent and subject to the help of society. 

Any part of the world subject to the world in the frame of commerce. From shipping, importing goods, spreading franchises, hosting and providing tourism, all inside this system keeping debt alive one way or another.

The U.S. in reducing debt is futile with all of these avenues that are in play. Regardless of what the trajectory is on the books for channels in place for reduction, each of or any of these factors trigger another debt or liability to cancel out any gained asset compounding interest.

The vicious cycle continues. It goes on decade after decade. The U.S., its politics, laws, the people, the crime, the poverty stricken, down trodden areas, homeless, unemployment , poor education, imbalance of proper healthcare, all on the government's plate. 

Then to combine that with the additional conflicts internationally on an economic level, business level, to reduce debt which if could be done, could be cut out altogether. Just overthrow the monetary system.

Which doesn't appear indicative to be projected to happen.

I've heard of this transition to gold. Will that be the answer?

Perhaps it is shifting the issue.

 In this round I present a number of opinion and rebuttal regarding to the arguments made by Con in Round 1.

1. I believe that Con`s main point is that ``the United States government cannot get out of debt, let alone reducing it.``

However, the United States government must get out of debt and reduce it.  The main reason is that the government is amassing huge debt year by year. 

The government must contribute to make the society which is comfortable place to live in from the long- term perspectives. 

Therefore, the government is trying desperately to reduce spending not only in military fields as much as possible but to reduce spending in welfare benefits for 

wealthy people.  The important thing is that the U.S. government must assume heavy responsibility for keeping enough financial sources to make the society function 

and survive not only for the present generation but for the future generation. 

 2. Con argues that ``a person, persons, a people,  a governing body of people for the people cannot reduce debt.``

However, the government must change the spending policy to avert the emergency and unexpected situation wisely. 

Once upon a time the U.S. accepted many immigrants from the rest of the world . Many illegal immigrants were included among them. 

The government poured a large amount of money in educating and training in many jobs for new-comers. 

The U.S. government played an important role in making life better for all people coming into the country by spending much public money. 

As a result, this policy contributed to increasing huge debt.  Coping with this dire situation, the government has introduced a policy to eliminate illegal immigrants

as much as possible recently.  I believe that this contributes to reducing debt of the government greatly.     

``Those who favor reduced immigration say that a large proportion of recent immigrants are low-skilled workers who take away jobs from  U.S.citizens and 

overwhelm government agencies that provide education, public assistance and medical care.``( `Should the U.S. reduce immigration ? `,  constitutioncenter.org.)

 3. Con points out that ``the vicious cycle continues.`` Continuation of the government debt damages the reliability and credibility of U.S. dollar. 

 This fuels the declining position of the dollar as the world money.  Therefore, huge debt must be averted and reduced at acceptable and reasonable level. 

  This is the end of my Round 2.  Now turn to Con.    

     

This debate is not about there must be a debt reduction.

I like to ask the opposing side , will there always be debt as long as the system of money exists?

Is the monetary system debt? Debt starts as soon as payment is owed .

It's being communicated that the debt has got to end . The debt has existed decade after decade.

You have money, you will always have debt .

All the poor and homeless on the streets, how much is it going to take to fix that up?

How is the U.S. government going to get out of debt or reduce it, let alone get out of it with the destitute and impoverished?

Any reduction so called will just be undone cleaning up the streets, accommodating for housing .

Should the U.S. government reduce immigration?

It depends on the goals of them and the people the votes.

The value of a dollar.

The value of a dollar continues to plummet decade after decade.

The pattern is clear. But what does society do because of this? Does it shut down?

No, it continues through inflation, making more business deals, transactions, continuing the cycle just to keep business going perhaps taking out business loans, applying credit, keeping the cycle of debt going to keep up with making a profit, keeping businesses going as the world turns.

As a result, what has happened in the workforce?

Wages and salaries have increased along with the rise in prices.

Which brings to mind the rise in prices in the stock market. Take an investment made in a stock in 1960.

Today's worth of that stock such as the S and P 500 or major chain franchise that has expanded, with inflation,more so helps investors rather than hurt.

When you talk about damage to society, where there's a weak point, there lies a strong point.

So much for value of a dollar and debt . You can see debt as a problem or just comes with the territory.

A huge amount of liability doesn't have to cancel out the asset.

In this Round I try to present my arguments relating the questions raised by Con in Round 2.

First question is ``how is the U.S. government going to get out of debt or reduce it, let alone get out of it with the destitute and impoverished ? ``

How to reduce the government deficit is an urgent problem to keep sound and healthy economy of the United States. One important policy is the promotion of 

the independent position of the Federal Reserve Board from the influence of the powerful Congressmen of the U.S. 

FRB plays an important role as the Central Bank of the U.S.  The important thing is that `` the Federal Reserve is inherently a political institution whose power 

derives from- and depends upon - the support of elected officials who represent the public.``(https://www.brookings.edu.)

Therefore, if the influential members of the Congress ask for buying the government bond or Treasury  securities , the FRB has been accepting their request for many

years.  Therefore, this contributed to fueling the huge government debt so far. The fact is that many members of Congress have been neglecting the danger of amassing the debt year by year.  The more government bond are issued, the more government debt amasses  outrageously. 

FRB is urgently required to place the highest priority on keeping sound monetary policy and the financial situation of the government. 

From the above argument, FRB must assume heavy responsibility for remaining politically independent. 

I believe that this policy contributes to reducing government debt greatly. 

 Second question is ``Should the U.S. government reduce immigration ? ``

As I have pointed out before, the U.S. government should reduce illegal immigration. They fuel heavy financial burden and lower productivity in many work-places because in general many of them are low-skilled workers and need many years of job training and education. 

If Donald Trump would be elected in presidential  election in 2024, he would introduce strict policy to limit their entrance into the U.S. 

 

The third question is concerning the value of a dollar. Con argues that ``the value of a dollar continues to plummet decade after decade. ``

The FRB must stabilize the value of a dollar by limiting the amount of money supply in the money market. 

We must pay attention to the fact that the government debt leads to the declining and unpopular position of the U.S. dollar in the world money market. 

And the Treasury securities and government bond become less attractive investment instruments. 

I believe that the U.S. government can reduce heavy debt by reducing the military spending for Ukraine and Israel as much as possible by raising taxes for the 

wealthy people and big business. 

In conclusion, ``throughout the 2024 election, voters will hear differing approaches to rising government debt, Social Security, the scheduled expiration of 

2017 tax cuts, and even the proper role and size of government. The ways the next Congress and administration grapple with these economic and fiscal 

challenges will not only impact the long-term trajectory of the economy but may also redefine the role and functions of government.``(`Debt and the role of government`, https://www.brookings. )               

If the U.S. government can reduce debt, why has it not been?

Is it simply because of "neglect"?

I believe that is the opposing side simplifying everything down.

In the earlier rounds I went into detail of all the factors, complex compounded issues and the cycle of debt where one perceived solution just leads to a new problem to solve.

These points weren't countered but dropped in placement of just reporting I guess topical news in today's economy.

The reason the debt has existed so long is because of the cycle I've been talking about. Debt has existed as long as money has. Debt is money. This point wasn't dealt with.

If debt could be cut back or eliminated, it would have been. 

Like I said, nobody of sound mind is going into debt to get what they want through purchase if there was a choice. Another point that wasn't countered.

You get into debt based on external factors, a lack of funds, an incorrect calculation based on outside factors and burdens that demand perilously in what more than what you can accommodate but believed you could sustain.

It is outside factors that leaves you in debt. It is outside factors to bring you out of it.

This point wasn't challenged. Rightfully so because there are relief assistance programs, fundraisers, wage and salary increases, tax revenue increases, all these outside factors that reduce debt of an individual entity seeking to get out of it .

If the entity itself could reduce the debt, it wouldn't seek assistance . If it can do that much, it could have that power to avoid it altogether.