The other day I wrote an article about how the national debt is not really a debt at all, but just part of the assets of the non-government. You know, basic MMT stuff.
I even included a link to a table from the Daily Treasury Statement that showed how the Federal Government redeemed (paid back) $94 Trillion last year. I did this to try to show how all the fear-mongering by Pete Peterson and Fix the Debt, etc was a total manipulation.
Well, after that article went up I got f'ckin bombarded with emails. These are just a few. Read them. Once you read them you will see that the public is sooo f'ckin ignorant on this stuff that I am sure, without a doubt, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution will happen.
What a crock of SHIT! This is just more lies published by the toadies of the 600 billionaires who are NOT paying their share of taxes, and who ARE systematically looting the assets of the United States.
You are TRULY STUPID! You must be liberal because your math skills suck. Many foreign governments and investors own treasuries; we pay interest on them that will soon take up over half our budget; and yes the money gets paid back. Man you are DUMB! Go peddle you BS elsewhere. WOW!
You missed it on this article.The statement says 94.2 trillion was paid off but it also says there is 95.6 trillion of new debt. You have to look at the net to figure out what is going on. We basically went into debt by another 1.4 trillion. It is the way accountants handle things. Apparently the debt is being refinanced over and over again. If you re-financed the million you owe on your private island, the books would say 1 million paid and 1 million new debt. If you re-financed it again for 1.2 million, the books would now say 2 million paid and 2.2 million new debt.
This article is trash and is a fucking lie. There is debt and there is interest. You are a true joke and I'm not sure how this article got past your editor. If you'd like to debate your philosophy, let's do it. Oh, and the Revolutionary War was not fought over a TAX, it was fought over who controls currency. idiot.
Hi Mike,I read your article on the illusion of the National Debt. Then I went to the websites you said were shams, Fix the Debt, and read their prophecies of doom. Then I went to Wikipedia. That led me to this link:http://www.gao.gov/financial_pdfs/citizensguide2008.pdfWhere the gov seems to be telling me that current medicare and social security spending are unsustainable, and the debt is a big problem. I'm trying to get fair and balanced information, and your column "it doesn't exist" seems to be as extreme to one side as Fix The Debt is to the other...I always thought spending more than you make is a BAD thing. What's the deal?Thank you.
Dear Mr Norman - I am writing to you with interest in your answering 2 questions.1) If, as you assert, there is nothing to worry about with the national debt, is it an equal assertion that the line item that covers debt service in the federal budget is also of equal meaninglessness?I assume these debt payments are real and without a national debt these debt payments would either not need to be paid or the money could be spent in other ways. Please clarify if you will.2) If the debt is meaningless, could then the Fed simply apply an easement to this number to wipe it out? Why would this not be a good idea?Thank you.Dave KSeattle WA
Could not disagree more with your article. There is debt and it IS owed to the people/other nations. Garbage article.
Mike, I just looked over your article and the screen shot of the Treasury page you talk about. I also looked at the line about Net Change to Public Debt and saw it was only about $1.4B as a result of the $94 trillion redemption. I presume almost all of that amount went to interest on the debt, and the amount of debt was only reduced by $1.4 trillion.
Just read your article "There is no Debt", and it made sense to me, except I wonder, "Then why is the spending power of the government limited? Why can't we do more things?" You see, I work for the Navy, and see all sorts of budgetary constraints, lack of resources to do the most basic things, etc. While in an accounting sense there is no debt, there is a problem with something, perhaps with something other than debt but is conflated with the national debt, that is limiting us. Indeed, why do we pay taxes? Can we stop paying, if there is no debt? Not trying to pick a fight, but some more explanation and clarification will help. Thanks!
Foolish article. The money is owed to foreign countries. You think we are idiots ?
You, are an idiot
The $94 trillion you mention is from accounting of mostly non-marketable securities. These are securities that are made up of payments and reciepts for Social Security, Pensions, etc. within the government. It is not the total that matters it is the difference. You are misleading your readers with your article.Debt matters, it matters because we are spending today's money by paying with future tax dollars.
And if we believe that bull crap story that you liberals would have us believe, then you've got a bridge to sell us, cheap, right???? What about the trillions of dollars we've borrowed from China? ----they're just going to write that off, Right?That's like saying we don't have any debt on our houses or cars because we make payments on them How gullible do you think the American people are? We're not all as stupid as your liberal bunch of sheep are, who just bury their heads in the sand and believe all your crap like this
Then why collect taxes? If there is no debt.
Hi Mike,I just read your article on national debt and why it doesn't matter. Its so contrary to what I hear and read constantly I had to write in with a few questions. Yes, the government paid out $94T in your example,but it also took in $95T in the same period. So in essence they're capability to pay depends on confidence in the system. The fed can print money,but if this is abused doesn't it devalue currency? If everyone had a money printer in their house,what would happen to the value of goods and the purchasing power of the dollar? The value of currency depends on its scarcity to some extent. Japan is proof that the limits can be stretched,but I find it hard to believe that the markets capacity for money printing is infinite. History is riddled with examples of bubbles and economic collapse. How are the laws of economic gravity different today?
Isn't that the same thinking the Greek government / economists were telling their people who dared to "fret" about their country's :debt"?
Thoughtful argument, Mike but you miss the point. Number 1. Dollars spent by government are not as productive as dollars coming from the private sector. And Two. The debt is a measure of government intrusion. Example. The government fined (I say shook down( banks for $250 Billion since 2009. Most of that money wen to the regulators. Banks are levered 10 to one so that would mean $2.5 Trillion came out of the economy. And that is just one example. Costs of compliance from regulators is trillions more and mostly they are too attacks of personal property rights. Half our economy is now public and public employees. And the whole cycle leads to Corporatism.
There are Issues and Redemption's and you completely ignore the fact that they took in more than they paid out. Your article is flawed.
i don't get your logic. the government issued 1.4 trillion than it redeemed (last line of table). to me thats increasing the debt subject to interest of 14 billion assuming a 1% rate. if the government used the money for social programs, it gets no payback but still has the debt. if the government used the money to create jobs, it gets a payback thru payroll taxes to service the debt. ???
You are a dangerous man, a monumental asshole. You were paid to write this, which makes you an immoral and unethical asshole. In fact you are $20Trillion assholes wrapped up in one big asshole. You should be ashamed.
The Merriam-Webster definition of debt is "an amount of money that you owe to a person, bank, company, etc." Investopedia tells us that "When an investor purchases a T-Bill, the U.S. government writes an IOU." When I go to the bank to get money from them that I don't have, the only way I can get it is to borrow it from them. They issue me a loan of some kind. I sign papers (a form of note promising them I will pay back the money) that indicate an IOU status for the money I now have, and they do not have.Are we playing with words here? Enron famously played the game you described: "There is the proof, right in front of our noses, that the debt is meaningless. It's just a bunch of bookkeeping entries. Keystrokes." Where is Enron today?You stated, "If you go to the last statement of the fiscal year . . .you will see the government redeemed (paid back) $94.2 trillion in one year!" First, if it isn't a debt, why did you use the phrase in parentheses, "paid back"? Second, where did the government get $94.2 trillion to pay anything back? They didn't get it from taxpayers, and they certainly didn't get it from where it was just "lying around somewhere"
Mike, you really need to read "The Debt Virus" as well as understand the manner in which Government borrows money and pays interest on that borrowing and how it inflates the money supply. Even if the inflation is "checkbook" money, it still has an effect on prices and growth.
Mike,I am curious after reading your article "The National Debt: why Fret......", what happens to the paper treasuries if on January 1, 2017 all oil trade settlements were changed to Euro's instead of Dollars ?My point, because of Oil Trades must all be settled in US Dollars there is an unbalanced Demand for US Treasuries that allows our Govt via the FED to always borrow or continuously refinance said debt from the last 240 yrs.There is no basis to pay the debt, it just gets rolled over and diluted.Am I wrong here
what can happen if you pretend the debt doesn't matter.
Actually, it's you who is misinforming. You are correct in that the US redeemed and reissued 90trillion dollars. Who cares? If debt didn't matter, why not run a trillion $ deficit? Why not $5T or $10T? Let's build those roads, pay for everyones college bills and give all people a basic benefit. At some point, the interest on that debt over takes the budget. Now - we could say that doesn't matter because we can issue all the $ we want to take care of this interest. We only need to look at other countries who have done this to see how that worked out for them. STOP
Mike, if the government can spend more than it takes in and incur no debt, then why tax us in the first place? Why not just spend to their heart's content? The answer is, there is a national debt and I think you need to go back to Economics 101. Our country is about the learn how devastating this irresponsible spending has been. I eagerly await your correct to your silly article. Good luck.
Mr. Norman, debt isn't an asset, it's the opposite...a liability. Take a basic accounting class. You are so clueless I don't know where to start with your ridiculous article on "no national debt". How did anyone print your article?
There's much, much, more.
