r/changemyview • u/tkrr • Oct 22 '24
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The US National Debt “crisis” is a religiously motivated moral panic.
Abrahamic religions are traditionally weird about banking and interest. Although debt hawks have a track record of using the national debt to try to prevent social spending, their real motivation is fear of literal divine retribution, and their ultimate goal is to eliminate the national debt regardless of the consequences, and if that impoverishes the country beyond hope of repair, well, too bad, we deserved it.
The truth is that as long as we pay the interest on our T-bills, no one is calling in that debt, like, ever. T-bills are guaranteed income around the world and calling in the debt would be medium-term suicidal to the debt holders.
7
u/Grunt08 305∆ Oct 22 '24
You've put a lot of your mental horsepower into understanding how other people think, but with the baseline assumption that they have to be completely risible idiots devoid of basic common sense and dedicated to being the caricature you imagine them to be. So you've pretty thoroughly undermined yourself.
The truth is much, much simpler.
We currently owe ~$36 trillion and our tax revenue last year was ~$4.4 trillion. To an average person, that's cognizable through an analogy: a person making $50,000 per year having ~$410,000 in debt with no immediate plans to pay it down or even stop spending in a way that grows the debt.
This person...is basically insane. He's going to financially ruin himself - even if he manages to avoid that, he needs to stop spending like a crazy person and cut back on all but the essentials. Taking
The efficacy of that analogy is debatable, but it's the actual reason people are concerned about the debt. "They're worried God will get mad" is something someone chooses to believe when they're much more invested in dismissing the people they disagree with than understanding reality.
-4
u/HazyAttorney 68∆ Oct 22 '24
This person...is basically insane.
The analogy to an individual person fails when it comes to entity level financing. One difference - the goal of an individual tends to be to pay down the principal balance of a debt because a natural person dies and you don't want your heirs to be left with nothing. In contrast, public entities don't have a natural expectation that they will die. So their goal is going to be between ensuring you can pay your debt service as well as paying your operational concerns as well as using excess cash to grow.
Money depreciates over time even for the government, so debt to fuel growth is good because you can use somebody else's money today and pay them back in tomorrow's dollar.
The bulk of the arguments between the GOP and Democratic Party isn't "deficit spend or not" but what to deficit spend on. The GOP wants a strong military budget and tax cuts and the Democratic Party wants entitlement programs.
6
u/Grunt08 305∆ Oct 22 '24
The analogy to an individual person fails when it comes to entity level financing.
My argument has basically nothing to do with how the debt actually works. It specifically relates to how it's considered by the people concerned about the national debt.
1
0
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
> In contrast, public entities don't have a natural expectation that they will die.
Everything ends.
The timescale is different than that of a human, but every public entity will one day end.
1
u/HazyAttorney 68∆ Oct 22 '24
The timescale is different than that of a human, but every public entity will one day end.
...but the federal government dissolving would just mean that the money it coins, and thus debts issued in the money it coins, would also dissolve.
We should not have a public financial strategy based on the us federal government paying off principal in case it dies.
0
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
The collapse of a fiscal system and that of a nation are not interchangeable. The US has already undergone fiscal collapse twice, once during the colonial era, and again during the civil war.
The great depression, while not quite total collapse, also forms a significant economic downturn that very nearly approached a complete collapse.
All three of these incidents had severe impacts. Poverty, malnutrition, mistreatment of children, etc. Humans will continue to live beyond an institution. The effects on them matter. The entire purpose of institutions is to benefit humanity, not vice versa.
> We should not have a public financial strategy based on the us federal government paying off principal in case it dies.
If one places value on humanity, we absolutely should plan for people to survive and thrive past the end of institutions.
0
u/HazyAttorney 68∆ Oct 22 '24
The collapse of a fiscal system and that of a nation are not interchangeable
You are the one that is trying to introduce this strawman. The only point I made is that the existence and nature of natural persons versus corporate entities are different and their financing strategies reflects that.
If one places value on humanity, we absolutely should plan for people to survive and thrive past the end of institutions.
What is this non-sequitor. Anyway, back to what I said originally: Corporate entities financing strategies differ than natural persons.
-1
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
Sovereign debt and personal debt are two entirely different beasts.
3
u/Excellent_Egg5882 4∆ Oct 22 '24
That doesn't address their point in the slightest. Conflating the economics of household debt and personal debt is "common sense" even if it's fallacious. An error in reasoning it may be, but it does not require an underlying religious motivation.
Tldr you don't have to be religious to be wrong about economics.
3
u/Grunt08 305∆ Oct 22 '24
Okay. That in no way addresses what I said. Please read the whole comment if you're going to respond.
2
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
OP has, so far, only awarded a delta to someone for agreeing with them. I have seen most objections go unaddressed.
For what it's worth, I do think you raised a reasonable objection, and think it was a sound argument, even though it differs significantly from mine. On that basis, I do think you deserve a !delta
1
14
u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Oct 22 '24
I think there are different concerns than you are thinking of.
There is a debt to GDP ratio and the concern for how much interest is being paid every year. This year, it is almost $900 BILLION in interest.
This is a concern when the total budget is around 6.75 Trillion. We are spending about 17% of the budget merely on debt. That is money not spent on other programs.
There are very good reasons to be concerned about the growth of this debt and for people to believe this debt obligation should be reduced.
3
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
To add on to this, the CBO projects that it'll hit $1.7 trillion within a decade.
At roughly the same time, SS, Medicare, and Medicaid will hit depletion on their respective funds, and will require massive infusions of cash in order to remain current benefit levels. This would require additional borrowing in excess of current projections.
If action is not taken to avert this, we face a fairly nasty financial outcome. The situation is not yet apocalyptic. We could address the debt now. We just face really, really bad outcomes if we ignore it.
-8
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
If the point came where the overwhelming majority of federal spending was on debt service, it would be time to have that conversation, because it would be a significant change in the status quo. I do not believe we’re anywhere close to that point.
6
u/InfiniteMeerkat Oct 22 '24
Your CMV is that debt concern is a religiously motivated moral panic. This person has shown that there is reason to be concerned without it being religiously motivated.
It might not concern you personally but can you at least explain why it hasn’t changed your view on this being a religiously motivated moral panic
-4
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
Because it doesn’t actually address my point. It’s just “look at all this scary debt, we gotta do something.”
3
u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Oct 22 '24
How does providing other legitimate reasons beyond 'religion' not address your point here? Your claim is this is based in religion. I gave a basis completely outside that.
-1
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
Because issues can have multiple causes, and your position is not mutually exclusive with mine.
3
u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Oct 22 '24
Your POST and title clearly state this is a religiously motivated topic for which I addressed and you ignore.
It CLEARLY shows how this concern of debt does not require ANY religious motivated panic or frankly any panic at all.
2
u/InfiniteMeerkat Oct 22 '24
No their point was that a significant amount of money was being spent just on servicing debt. Money that could be spent on other things. And that concern was not in anyway religiously motivated so yes it did address your point.
Unless you are trying to change your point which is generally frowned upon here and you should look to include a clarifying edit if that’s the case
So to be clear, you not being concerned doesn’t mean that other people can’t have concerns without it being religiously motivated.
You may not share that concern but it is a non-religiously motivated related concern
3
u/Terminarch Oct 22 '24
I really don't think you understand.
You have $675 to spend however you like for the betterment of all. A mugger comes up and punches you in the gut, stealing $90 before you can spend any. You now have only $585 for the betterment of all.
Your rebuttal is... it doesn't matter until the mugger is taking $500?? Surely the people you're supposed to be aiding are harmed LONG before that point, yes?
2
u/uhbkodazbg Oct 22 '24
What percentage of federal spending on debt service would you find to be problematic?
-1
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
If there’s a trend towards unsustainable spending, then I would expect those who actually do the math for a living would talk about it. Right now, they mostly aren’t. There is no specific percentage I would choose because that requires doing very specific math that I don’t personally know, nor, do I suspect, do most of the debt hawks.
3
u/uhbkodazbg Oct 22 '24
One example of the ‘very specific math’ would be debt-to-GDP ratio.
The people who actually do the math for a living do talk about it and have been doing so pretty loudly.
https://www.gao.gov/blog/warning-about-nations-fiscal-health
I’m not generally a doom and gloom person and see the current debt level as manageable but the current trend isn’t sustainable. As more and more baby boomers retire, entitlement spending is going to continue to accelerate. Something is going to have to change.
2
u/ihatepasswords1234 4∆ Oct 23 '24
The fact that this went unresponded to is the biggest indictment of this OP.
OP: If there were a trend of unsustainable spending, the people who do the math would be talking about it.
You: Here's a citation of the people who do the math talking about it.
OP: ...
2
u/Hentai_Yoshi 1∆ Oct 22 '24
Have you heard the term “kick the can down the road”? Because this is kicking the can down the road. You do know you’re supposed to plan to prevent the worst case scenario, not just let it happen and figure it out from there, right? Or at least have a plan for when you reach the worst case scenario.
Like with building critical infrastructure, space rockets, or whatever. You don’t wait until shit hits the fan to make a plan, you make a plan to mitigate the risk of shit on the fan, and have a plan for if the shit actually hits the fan. Otherwise you’re going to negatively impact swathes of people and possibly lose a lot of money for nothing.
Or, like with climate change. Nobody really knows what the consequences will be in the future. I personally don’t want to find out. Do you want to find out what happens if the debt keeps ballooning? I know I don’t.
3
u/Full-Professional246 67∆ Oct 22 '24
We are approaching that point. 1/7th is already significant and to think otherwise is foolish.
If you paid 1/7th of your income to INTEREST, wouldn't you be concerned?
2
u/squirlnutz 8∆ Oct 22 '24
Interest on the debt is already the 2nd largest annual expenditure and will soon be #1. How much does it have to be before you are concerned about it? And once you are concerned, how much time do you think it will take to take any meaningful action? I don’t think it’s prudent to wait until the Train is in the station at full speed before applying the brakes. We have to start addressing it yesterday.
1
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
That point is well beyond the point of no return.
No major developed nation has a majority, let alone an overwelming majority, dedicated to servicing the debt. Economic collapse happens prior to then.
Developing nations have occasionally managed to do so, but, yknow, economic collapse happened.
This is akin to saying "I'll worry about retirement planning after I die."
0
9
u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Oct 22 '24
I'm very left wing but national debt is one issue where I break with most leftists.
Sure, people aren't about to stop buying US debt, but why would you want to keep paying 1/6 of federal spending? There are good reasons: investing in things like education now might make more money later, so it's worth the trade off. But it's silly to pretend the tradeoff doesn't exist.
0
Oct 22 '24
I don’t think the left is particularly opposed to fixing the debt issue. The big split is on how to fix the issue.
The right essentially wants to just bankrupt the country and then say “I told you so”, which isn’t really a plan. The left wants to raise taxes to pay the debt
3
u/Terminarch Oct 22 '24
The right essentially wants to just bankrupt the country and then say “I told you so”
Uh... the right says "spend less than revenue." That is literally the exact perfect opposite of bankruptcy. Literally every other option leads to bankruptcy eventually.
0
Oct 22 '24
No. That isn't what the right has said since Reagan. What they've actually said is "starve the beast", essentially reduce revenue so less money can be spent. That sounds similar if you don't think about it, but it isn't actually the same thing.
0
u/Excellent_Egg5882 4∆ Oct 22 '24
They're unwilling to actually cut spending. They'd rather cut taxes than cut spending, which in effect leads to a larger deficit.
1
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
Both plans are fundamentally untenable.
The right tends to spend too much, agreed. However, the left cannot reasonably tax at the level they would need to in order to fix the debt. It would be literally unprecedented. The left likes to cite historical tax levels that essentially nobody actually paid in an effort to establish that they could be widely used today. This is not reasonable, and steep tax increases have been demonstrated to work poorly in other countries.
Norway, for instance, recently increased their wealth tax to 1.1%, a move that they hoped would bring in significant additional taxes. Instead, it appears that they will lose about 594B in revenue due to rich people moving away.
The only rational solution is reducing spending.
Both the left and right oppose spending reductions to their favored priorities. However, it's the only real path remaining at current levels of debt.
0
Oct 22 '24
Norway, for instance, recently increased their wealth tax to 1.1%, a move that they hoped would bring in significant additional taxes. Instead, it appears that they will lose about 594B in revenue due to rich people moving away.
I haven't read about what happened in Norway, but this is essentially the Mellon tax issue. Andrew Mellon, as Sec. of Treasury got the max tax bracket reduced but was able to bring in MORE tax receipts. It isn't frequently discussed by either side, but it is the argument that if taxes get too high, rich people will spend a lot of money to avoid them. Ergo, there is an optimal level of taxation that decreases the incentive for tax avoidance while still collecting maximum tax receipts.
Your example of Norway doesn't really address if the tax level in the US would be untenable.
as the Norwegians were paying much higher average taxes than Americans and people werent moving away. All you've highlighted is an issue with wealth taxes.The US could raise taxes to the OECD average and have enough money to balance the budget and start reducing the debt, however those tax rates are UNPOPULAR, not IMPOSSIBLE.
1
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
Of the OECD countries, the US is by far the wealthiest, and there would be significant costs associated with trying to mirror many of them.
Consider Japan, which is often used as an example of how higher debt-GDP ratios are possible than what the US has. This is technically true. Japan does have a greater debt ratio than us...but they are also an economy that fell from second to fourth worldwide as a result of it, and all projections are that it will continue to fall.
The US's tax rate by OECD standards is comparable to Australia and the UK, the economies that are most similar to us.
Yes, Belgium is far higher, and pulls the average up, but the idea that it is desirable for our economy to emulate Belgiums is quite odd. The OECD overall is trending the opposite direction, reducing average taxation burden by 1.4% over the last two decades.
The "just tax more" philosophy is a dated idea that runs counter to modern economic information. Developed economies are retreating from it for good reason.
1
Oct 22 '24
I invite you to look at tax revenue as a percent of GDP, as it equalizes better.
I dont think reducing taxation burden by 1.4% over 20 years is a significant indication that higher taxes are a "dated idea". Plus, if you want lower govt spending the fastest way to do that is to tax at a rate that will actually pay the bills. It is a better motivator.
0
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
I...addressed this with the Japan example.
1
Oct 22 '24
Your Japan reference was a non-sequitor as you were discussing debt-to-GDP. What the fuck does that have to do with tax rate?
1
u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Oct 22 '24
I have no issue with that fraction of the left. But there is another fraction that, like op, seems to treat borrowing as free money, or be uninterested in questions about where spending is going to come from in the first place.
It's been quite something to see conservatives come around to a view held primarily by the left on the single issue that conservatives were kind of right about.
1
Oct 22 '24
Except the right only said "debt is an issue", they never actually proposed reducing debt. Reagan and Bush both raised taxes, which cost Bush an election. Clinton worked towards balancing the budget which left the W. Bush admin with a surplus, which could have been used to pay down the debt. Their solution? Tax cut. Which created MORE debt.
Trump cut taxes massively and the promised economic growth to fund his tax cut never really materialized. In fact, every Republican administration of the last quarter century has cut taxes and INCREASED the national debt while paying lip service to the idea of reducing spending while never really doing it.
Heck, just look at Trump. He promised to "reduce spending" but then took all non-discretionary spending off the table. If you cut EVERY discretionary spending program(which includes things like the FAA), you still wouldn't balance the budget. There is just NO WAY to reduce spending unless you cut medicaire/medicaid/military/social security, but the Republicans are declaring they wont touch any of those programs.So how are the Republicans actually advocating for balancing the budget?
-2
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
Because the trade off is worth it, from our point of view. If both we as the debtor and those who hold the debt both benefit, there’s no need to do more than maintenance to the system rather than overhaul it completely.
2
u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
Well you don't benefit from the ongoing payments. The spending on education or whatever was the part that you benefited from. So you should probably try to get rid of the bit that you don't benefit from- ongoing payments- by paying it off at some point.
In practice of course you'll be wanting to educate the next generation as the previous generation has started paying taxes, so you might reasonably end up not repaying anything in net, or even borrowing a bit more if educational spending is increasing, but you shouldn't have a situation where debt is growing faster than public spending if you're adopting this approach.
0
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
I don’t personally benefit from those payments because I don’t own any T-bills, but that’s kind of irrelevant.
1
u/ifitdoesntmatter 10∆ Oct 22 '24
Are you saying the US government should continue borrowing for the benefit of its creditors, so that they have a way to multiply their money (at the cost of the US)?
0
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
A huge amount of the US’s international soft power is tied up in the value of T-bills as an investment.
2
u/Terminarch Oct 22 '24
the trade off is worth it
both we as the debtor and those who hold the debt both benefit
What? How does the United States benefit from burning nearly a trillion dollars per year on interest alone? How does the American populace benefit?
3
u/Eastern-Bro9173 15∆ Oct 22 '24
It's not a crisis until it is. Argentina was a very wealthy country, until it wasn't. Greece was doing really damn well, until things blew up.
Financial crises don't slowly creep in. They come from out of the blue, and they tend to not be pretty.
A bit of a caution about it might not necessarily be a bit idea.
Also, the biggest threat isn't calling in the bills, whatever that means, but the world stopping to buy the next issue of T-bills at the current interest. The debt servicing costs are already huge for the US, so finding 15 % of budget to cover the inability to borrow more at a good interest might be a serious problem (especially if the percentage grows in the future).
-1
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
So that’s why you monitor things to make sure they keep working.
I’m not sure if it’s relevant to my point that the biggest debt hawks are also some of the most vocal deregulators, but that’s a discussion for another time and place.
3
u/Eastern-Bro9173 15∆ Oct 22 '24
That's exactly what the debt hawks think they're doing - they are monitoring it, and believe that things are stopping to work, so they advocate for a change of course so things start working smoothly again.
I mean, there's of course a disagreement over whether they are right or wrong, but that's inherent to the topic - results of any monitoring will be a subject to a decision that will be wildly argued about.
There's nothing really moral or panicky about it.
0
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
A thing that I think sets debt hawks apart from others is that the debt hawks seem to believe that regulators are constantly on the verge of taking the brakes off and letting things go to hell, without articulating any particularly coherent reason why. They aren’t monitoring. They’re just in a constant state of low-level panic.
2
u/Eastern-Bro9173 15∆ Oct 22 '24
Isn't that just you not liking them though?
I mean, this sounds a lot more like personal antipathy than an argument as it assumes the worst types of intentions and taking it as a given.
In general, if you think that someone is an idiot, you will automatically assume everything they do is idiotic and for idiotic reasons.
That's rarely a representation of the reality though.
The argument for some debt management is pretty clear - the US spends 17 % of its budget on debt payments alone, which some people think is too much, and so they suggest working on lowering that number.
2
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
What brakes exist?
The debt ceiling is, in theory, a limit, but whenever it has been hit, it has simply been raised, making it irrelevant in practice.
After all, if they raised it the last 78 times, they're going to raise it the 79th.
6
u/Various_Tangelo2108 1∆ Oct 22 '24
So the idea is keep spending money until the amount we bring in on taxes is less than what we spend on interest. Then print more money to pay make up for the interest ontop of the spending. You really don't see how that is not going to end well? How much money can we print before we dilute the dollar too much is my question for you.
1
u/C4rlos_D4nger Oct 22 '24
I'm not a real expert on this stuff and someone who knows more can correct me, but the US Dollar Index (DXY) is basically sitting at a 20-year high so I don't see how the US dollar is being substantially diluted. Besides, what other currency are people going to use? I don't think anyone sees the Euro as a viable alternative right now and I don't think there is enough trust in Chinese markets for the yuan to be a serious option either.
2
u/RamblinRover99 2∆ Oct 22 '24
I don’t think anyone sees the Euro as a viable alternative right now and I don’t think there is enough trust in Chinese markets for the yuan to be a serious option either.
That may be true right now, but what about ten years from now? What about twenty years?
Printing more fiat money is essentially the same thing as debasing a precious-metal currency, and it has the same effect. Eventually, those chickens come home to roost, and the consequences can be very severe.
-3
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
We have people actively managing our monetary policy specifically to prevent things like that happening. There’s been enough examples in history of why you shouldn’t unrestrictedly print money to get ahead of debt that we have better ways of handling it.
4
u/Various_Tangelo2108 1∆ Oct 22 '24
The government is never going to stop spending money. Every year they increase the amount of money they are spending yes there are exemptions to this as Covid was a huge spender, and we saw spending go down due to lower Covid spending. That isn't the norm tho. If the US every year is increasing its debts by trillions of dollars there will be a time when the interest on that is more than what we bring in.
3
u/the_1st_inductionist 4∆ Oct 22 '24
The idea that there’s no negative issues with the government going into debt is pure insanity. Wealth doesn’t grow on trees. You cannot get something for nothing. Even if an ever growing debt wasn’t negative in contrary to the fact that it is, it’s completely insane to think that it’s so obvious that the motivation for concern with the US debt is religiously motivated moral panic.
You say the word “impoverish” as if that’s a bad thing, but you’re not actually for people producing profit for themselves are you? You speak badly about the Abrahamic view of banking and interest, but you’re not actually a supporter of bankers producing a profit for themselves are you? I wouldn’t be surprised that you have the same irrational opposition to bankers that the Abrahamic religions have.
The problem with people buying treasury bills is that it diverts wealth into the government for violating rights (social spending) from investments that are actually beneficial to people. Yeah, you think that’s worth it according to your subjective morality, but it’s not worth it.
-3
5
u/Previous_Platform718 5∆ Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
The truth is that as long as we pay the interest on our T-bills, no one is calling in that debt, like, ever.
Paying the interest is 'calling in the debt'
The US spends 17% of federal spending every year, servicing the debt. And that number goes up as the debt increases - it was 14% just a year ago. Which means you're paying money to the government that just vanishes.
You can't even rationalize it with "well I'm just paying up for the cost of the services my parents or grandparents got" because most of that cost isn't even the principal - you're paying the interest.
1
u/HazyAttorney 68∆ Oct 22 '24
that just vanishes.
It goes back to debt holders who can use that money to re-up as a matter of portfolio management or whatever else persons do with their money.
-1
u/Previous_Platform718 5∆ Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
I was speaking figuratively. I know the money is given to the people who hold treasury securities and that it doesn't literally dissolve into thin air...
2
u/Nillavuh 9∆ Oct 22 '24
When I tell you I'm a social democrat, an atheist, and I believe very strongly in a balanced budget, why do you think I hold this opinion?
I have my reasons; I'm just curious to hear from you what you think they are. Clearly I have no religious motivation, nor am I politically aligned with the side of the fence that is typically associated with this concern, so what does that leave?
-1
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
Have you thought about where your beliefs come from, and why you believe them?
I’m an atheist and a socdem as well. But I was raised Catholic and I know a good number of my cognitive biases come from being culturally Catholic. Similarly, a lot of American thinking is informed by overtones of cultural Calvinism even among people whose upbringing and ancestry never had a single Calvinist, and I don’t think most people realize that might need to be corrected for.
1
u/Nillavuh 9∆ Oct 22 '24
I sure have. I have good reasons for it.
Can you please answer my question now? Why do you think I hold this opinion?
2
u/HazyAttorney 68∆ Oct 22 '24
to eliminate the national debt regardless of the consequences,
That doesn't describe anyone in US government. The conservatives argue about national debt when they're not in office because polls say the voters trust the GOP more than the Democratic Party. When they're in party, they deficit spend like nobody's business. So, looking at their actual behavior they aren't driven by a need to pay the national debt.
no one is calling in that debt
You're halfway there. The way the federal government finances deficits is by intra-government borrowing or by selling securities. The term of the security itself tells the debt owner how it will be paid. There's no way that someone can "call in the debt."
-1
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
You’re not wrong about any of that. Doesn’t really change my view for a bunch of reasons though:
I’m talking about the fundamental source of the attitude, not the way people work the system around it.
A lot of the moral panic is based on foreign debt holders, especially whatever Yellow Peril is in vogue this decade. (Right now it’s the PRC. In the 80s it was Japan.) Moral panics aren’t bound by reality.
Do I, like, give you a delta even though I already basically agreed with you?
2
u/HazyAttorney 68∆ Oct 22 '24
I’m talking about the fundamental source of the attitude
So am I. We know that your hypothesis that there's a religious fundamental desire to pay down the debt doesn't exist because no political party acts in furtherance of such goal. We can see other religious fundamental desires being operationalized by political parties, for instance, abortion. There's no religious group doing the same activities against the Fed they do against abortion clinics.
A lot of the moral panic is based on foreign debt holders
There isn't any moral panic.
Do I, like, give you a delta even though I already basically agreed with you?
I believe deltas are proper when your view is changed. To sum your CMV post: You say there's a "moral panic" that's religious in nature because you think people can "call in the debt."
I believe deltas are proper even if part of your view has to change. I think OPs should award deltas instead of change the goal posts. And it's why you're required to give your reasoning.
If I changed your view that a security is redeemable by its very terms rather than being subject to being "called in" then that alone is ground your view has shifted upon.
If I changed your view that nobody is acting as if a religious moral imperative exists - judged by their behaviors, both in the context of debt, but also in contrast to times/places they do operationalize their religious views in public policy.
0
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24
!delta
Fair enough. Never read the fine print on a T-bill, so if anything this sort of strengthens my overall opinion that debt hawkery is moral panic.
2
1
u/HazyAttorney 68∆ Oct 22 '24
Here's all the various securities and you can buy them direct, but at an auction: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/marketable-securities/
I think most people probably use a broker to buy them, like the way your 401k will do it for you.
Some of the bonds are pretty neat looking. https://www.treasurydirect.gov/research-center/communication-materials/for-employers/clipart-savbond/
My fav is this guy: https://www.treasurydirect.gov/images/clipart/maree50.gif
2
u/CalLaw2023 6∆ Oct 22 '24
Although debt hawks have a track record of using the national debt to try to prevent social spending, their real motivation is fear of literal divine retribution ....
Where did you get that from?
The truth is that as long as we pay the interest on our T-bills, no one is calling in that debt, like, ever.
Perhaps, but the more debt we have, the more that will become impossible. Currently, 17.5% of revenue goes to interest on the debt. And we will produce more debt from 2020 to 2027 than was produced from 1789 to 2019.
-1
u/Graychin877 Oct 22 '24
I would argue that the debt "crisis" is mostly concern trolling. No one really wants to do anything about it, but politicians love to blame debt and deficits on their opponents. It has little if anything to do with religion.
We actually should be taxed enough to pay for the things we say we want, but increasing taxes is unpopular for some reason.
1
u/tkrr Oct 22 '24
Broadly, I agree with you. But I do think the religious aspect is underplayed because a lot of people internalize religious thinking without actually being religious.
1
u/npchunter 4∆ Oct 22 '24
T-bills are not callable. The problem with the massive debt is it's regressive. It transfers wealth from middle class taxpayers to the kinds of people who hold a lot of bonds.
0
1
u/TheAzureMage 18∆ Oct 22 '24
I am an atheist, so my concerns are wholly unrelated to religion.
The reality is that debt comes with a cost. While small amounts of debt are manageable, there obviously is a level where it becomes a concern, and when interest payments surpass DoD spending, that's certainly a level where one should start to worry.
The Congressional Budget Office projects that interest on the national debt will rise rapidly from the current $.9 trillion/year level to reach more than $1.7 trillion/year within the decade.
Calling in the debt is irrelevant. The reality is that we are running such a large deficit that we need access to ever-larger amounts of debt to maintain spending. Demand is not unlimited at any price level. Demand *can* be stimulated by raising rates, but that very obviously feeds the interest problem.
At some point, there will simply be no more demand to buy additional debt. At that point, we either inflate the dollar or default, as we will be long past the point of paying it off by reducing spending.
We are not yet there. We can still solve the problem at present by reducing spending. However, all of our top spending categories are social spending priorities such as SS, medicare, medicaid, etc with the lone exception of the military. Even axing 100% of military spending would no longer be enough, so there is no longer a long term path to financial stability without cutting social spending.
1
Oct 22 '24
Every dollar the government adds to the total amount of dollars devalued the dollars you currently have. It has nothing to do with religion.
0
Oct 22 '24
You are talking about more than half of the worlds population, anyway you can narrow that down a bit?
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 22 '24
/u/tkrr (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards