The Frederick News-Post recently reported the federal government spent $984 billion more than it received in the last fiscal year — a deficit $200 billion higher than the previous year!

This brings the total federal debt to $18.5 trillion — $56,575 for every American, or over $226,000 for a family of four.

We should all be asking our representatives and senators why they allow this to happen, why they are burdening our children with such massive debt. I’m pretty sure the real answer has to do with their chances for re-election. Just look at the press releases on their websites.

David Bugher

Frederick

(39) comments

FCPS-Principal

Only debt-free people can complain about the national debt.

MD1756

Other than using creit cards that are paid off in full monthly, I am debt free. Debt itself is not bad it is how much debt you have compared to income or revenue and what you use your debt for that can be bad and the U.S. is in trouble and heading for more trouble if something doesn't change.

FCPS-Principal

Nothing is preventing the debt fear mongers from calculating their share and sending a check to the US Treasury. Why have they not done this?

MD1756

Why pay more to the government when it is spending it on services that you don't use? For example, I have no children but my tax money goes to supporting education for children. Fair enough, but why do you think I should then volunteer more of my money to pay off the debt when it is others who are creating more of the debt than I am. I want the governments at all levels to stop expanding "services" and tax breaks (i.e., income tax breaks for choosing to have children when those children just increase the costs of services the governments provide).

seanjames

the problem is people look at the national debt as if it's the same thing as personal debt when it's not. i won't pretend to know all the ins-and-outs and i've read compelling arguments that debt should be kept near zero whenever possible or that national debt really doesn't matter. but in either case, couching it in terms of how much each individual american "owes" of the debt is not useful and not at all how this works. people just use that as a scare tactic to deficit hawk. which of course usually just means gutting any program that actually helps disadvantaged people while keeping the tax incentives and subsidies for giant corps

Blueline

One major issue is the debt service (interest) on the debt, which annually I believe is around $575 Trillion. Using your example, that's $575 T that can't be used to help people. If you cut the debt in half, you would have another $290T for programs as a windfall.

seanjames

but the assumption there is that the economy would be exactly as it is now without having accrued that debt, which isn't true

Blueline

I missed my zeros above, it would be Billions, not Trillions.

DickD

You are right, Sean, but it does limit our credit with foreign countries. You might find this interesting:

From U.S. Newshttps://money.usnews.com/investing/investing-101/articles/how-the-national-debt-affects-you"But, like your parents' debt, if the federal government's budget deficit grows too large, it will impact your daily life and investments in a painful way.""More government bonds cause higher interest rates and lower stock market returns. As the U.S. government issues more Treasury securities to cover its budget deficit, the market supply of bonds increases. "When you have more of something, it gets cheaper," says Jim Barnes, director of fixed Income at Bryn Mawr Trust. In bonds, cheaper means lower prices and higher interest rates.For bondholders this is both a boon and a burden: New bonds will provide higher yields but the prices on old bonds will fall. For stock investors, higher rates are only a burden."

threecents

It must mean something. Otherwise, the govt could spend as much as they want... Oh, right, they do. I guess we are OK, as long as other countries continue to accept American dollars as international currency. So it is a good thing we are on good terms with China and Europe... Uh oh...

MD1756

I think it is useful becuase you can potentially estimate the "services" you you and potentially estimate if you receive more in services than you pay for or if you pay more for the services than you use. That may then help one decide if expanded services is spomething they want to support. As I said before debt in and of itself is not bad, but is the amount of debt and what you use it for. Clearly, if you can borrow money at 1.9% then take the money and invest it in something that generates greater than 1.9% return, that debt is good. That is exactly what I did when I bought my last car in 2014. I could have paid cash but I got a loan for 1.9 percent and left my investments alone which earned much more than 1.9% Taking out loan after loan to pay for cruises that one cannot afford is not a good debt, just as increasing services such as all day pre-k when you don't have the income for it and the long term benefits are not clear would be bad debt.

jerseygrl42

David, the debt is of concern to those who will have to pay it but the do nothing congress doesn't seem to care, also the correct # is $22.5 Trillion and Ten of that came under the obama administration which averaged $1.25 Trillion in new debt every year

hayduke2

Jeersey facts - [lol][lol][lol]

public-redux

FWIW (not much to you, I'm sure), $6 trillion of the debt is owed to federal agencies. So that is kind of like taking $10 from one purse and putting into a different purse. Now my second purse has a debt of $10. But since both purses are mine, it isn't a debt to me. Just to my purse.

Another way to understand this is that various government agencies have assets of $6 trillion. They have lent those assets to the general treasury.

FCPS-Principal

Sure it did. And Obama shot President Kennedy too.

DickD

David, if Republicans cared about deficits they would not have passed a tax reduction for billionaires and large corporations.

gary4books

Spending is NOT the problem. Tax cuts may be a problem. The important thing is to see spending as either good or bad. Or one can say productive or not productive. For an example, we borrowed all we needed to win the second World War and paid it back after we won the world in 1945. It was good spending, even though it took much more than money. Now we are to send our best people to decide what spending is productive. And if they decide we need to spend enough to get the job done. If they are wrong, we should replace them.

Blueline

The only way it will happen is a Balanced Budget provision. Politicians on both sides are too entwined with spending, and figure they'll be gone, so someone else will have to deal with the effects.

gary4books

The Federal government also prints the money, within reason we can have times to spend more and later on to spend less than we take in. State governments do not have that luxury.

MD1756

Balanced buget provisions are good ideas but one has to be careful as to how they are implemented. You can balance the budget by cutting boring critical infrastructure to increase other services that may get the politician more votes. For example, one may cut the environmental budget or wastewater collection/treatment budget and direct the money to a fund a parade or switch from parents taking care of their children to all day pre-k with questionable long term benefits, or some other project/service. The budget may be balanced but the money isn't necessarily spent wisely and eventually more money will need to be spent later when the critical infrastructure eventually fails.

gary4books

When it fails? Good point. And they do say "Never let a good crisis go to waste". That can move all to want to fix the problem."

FCPS-Principal

So tell us dear writer, why should we all care about the deficit?

naturegirl

Why doesn't the GOP care about spending and the deficit now? When a Democrat is in office, that is all they cry about...now, crickets from those that worship old dumpy and his fraudulent patriotism. Appalling, how overtly hypocritical the former "deficit hawks" have become.

BunnyLou

Your party has been in charge of the purse for two years... look in the mirror, hypocrite.

richardlyons

You crack me up, daily!

matthewboh

Yes, the Dems control the House but budgets go through the Senate as well. I think you know who's in the majority in the Senate, but just in case, it's the Republicans.

awteam2000

BunnyLou, you are mistaken. The Democrats only took over the house In January 2019, 10 months ago. Before then the House and Senate where controlled by the Republican majority. Remember? They gave a huge tax cut to the most rich with no way to pay for it, and with an estimated $1.9 trillion cost over 10 years. The “trickle down” effect didn’t work again.

vjhughes

She obviously doesn’t remember any of this. No understanding, either.

threecents

She is so cute, with the floppy ears and the way she chews celery.

shiftless88

Wow, Bunny; you have no concept of how government works.

gary4books

I suspect it seems like two years. But the election year does not count.

hayduke2

Bunny = alternative facts....

hayduke2

Hey Bunny - look at https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1430/balance-federal-budget-fairly-quickly/

MD1756

Both parties are the problem.

jerseygrl42

the biggest "deficit hawk" was LBJ who pushed and signed the "Great Society " bill containing a series of freebees that to date have cost the taxpayers $22 Trillion ...just about what the total national debt is....interesting....too many giveaways

hayduke2

Myths, half truths and fear mongering...

gary4books

Vietnam cost money. Helping people was just a footnote on the budget.

awteam2000

Jersesgrl42,

The Nation’s Debt, is the debt-to-GDP ratio is the metric comparing a country's public debt to its gross domestic product (GDP). By comparing what a country owes with what it produces, the debt-to-GDP ratio reliably indicates that particular country’s ability to pay back its debts. Taking on increased debt happens typically when there’s a national crisis like an economic depression or war. Not when the economy is soaring. The best way to compare a presidencies contribution to the national debt is to compare their budgetary annual deficits. Trump is on a pace to add $5.088 trillion to the debt in his first term. That's a 30% increase at the end of Obama's last budget for FY 2017. Where Johnson: had a 13% increase in the debt over the end of Kennedy's last budget, FY 1964.

seanjames

please, and i say this with all due respect, go back to jersey

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.