US debt has never caused us a problem

The Republicans love to scream about the debt.  I have been hearing about it since Reagan 

But it has bever caused us a single problem 

but that doesn't mean there never will be a problem, right? unless you are cool with us spending a hundred trillion a year? my point, there is surely a limit on what is safe and responsible... so what is your theory on that? 

The US has defaulted on its debt four times. If you want to avoid a fifth, every dollar will need to be repaid with interest.

Yes at some point the debt could be a problem.   I don't think we are there yet

No.  The US defaulted once on its debt in 1979 y accident and that was an error in the system that was quickly fixed

Are you disputing the four examples I linked to, or do you have different criteria for what counts as a default? If you want to continue making payments on time, the US government will have to pay back more than it borrowed, which is why borrowing in the first place is considered fiscally irresponsible.

It depends on your definition of default but I suppose you could define it that way.

Every country uses debt.  So does almost every household.

To never use debt would be irresponsible 

Is your home loan irresponsible?

Saving is better than borrowing. Investing is better than saving.

A lot of them are. Even then, a home loan is a one-time thing. The US govt keeps borrowing more each year. The fact that the government is still outspending its revenue after 400 years is a huge sign of fiscal irresponsibility. If a significant portion of the budget was invested in index funds, borrowing would be unnecessary. I suppose if we borrowed to invest with a plan to pay off the debt, I could get behind that.

Can you name the successful country that has adopted your plan?

Thanks. Do you have a theory why all the other successful countries in the world don't do this?

Norway was the only one I could find, but there could be others. Generally, I think that long-term plans are unpopular in democracies if they come with upfront costs, given that election cycles occur every few years. Norway's executive branch is a monarchy, which might explain why they plan ahead. Of course, there are downsides to that approach. Russia's five-year plan and China's Great Leap Forward both happened under dictators.

I just think its a unsustainable model.  Much like a household the ability to leverage debt allows countries to provide for services it could not ordinarily.  

Investing is more sustainable than borrowing. It's why universities have endowments.

But not countries.  Not even major companies.  To create your model we would need to drastically curtail spending and raise taxes to get to the point where we have no debt snd enough to invest.

In fact t a fifth of our debt is invested in ourself thru treasury bills

That's why it's politically unpopular. But it doesn't need to happen all at once, and the long-term gains outweigh the costs.

If it is unpopular then that is the will of the people 

In a democracy the will of the people must be respected

Sure, but electing Republicans who complain about the debt is also the will of the people.

if you acknowledge that the debt could or will proably be a problem someday, maybe you should put more emphasis on coming up with ideas about how to prevent that. the path we're on is unsustainable, and your focus is on saying it ain't so bad. 

I don't agree with the drastic measures the screamers about national debt propose

We can do nothing for quite some time yet

It is.  But when they get in power they increase it too

that has an interactive quiz where everyone can balance the budget. the bottomline is that trimming spending here and there and increasing taxes here and there can solve our future debt problems. nothing drastic needed

Yet it seems the will of the people are not there yet

Because it hasn't really caused us any problems

our society and government is reactionary, though, they wait until there's a crisis point to do anything. that's not the smart response. we do have a democracy, but it's more accurately a representative democracy, so if the representatives can figure out a method to prevent future problems, they should. our representatives know better, often, that's why it's designed the way it is. 

I think the question americans should pose is what the government is spending on with the additional borrowed money. Europe and Japan have a debt of more than 100% their GDP, so it could be considered as a normal policy.

Is it for the Ukraine war? Is it for for social programs? Is it for keeping democrats' promises? 🤔

All of those would be good reasons

If debt causes inflation....why does inflation go up and down but debt always increases?

In 2022, the federal government spent $476 billion on net interest costs on the national debt. That total, which grew by 35 percent from $352 billion in 2021, was the largest amount ever spent on interest in the budget, and equaled nearly 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

And it causes us no problems