National Debt: How will we pay this back?
827844
Disgusting, eh?  It goes beyond party lines though.  Democrats and Republicans both are addicted to spending. Everyone has some palms to grease.\n\nIf we could just agree on which programs to cut, our nation would be well on its way.\n\nI don't think you pay that back though.  You just keep making debt payments until the amount becomes trivial to repay.  Think:  100 year mortgage.  Also, US net worth is approx 40 Trillion.
1180214
THATS POLITICS THIS IS BUSINESS.  OUR DEBTS PAY FOR HIS WARS AND EXPENSIVE DINNERS.  WE SAY WE FORGIVE THEIR DEBTS BUT THEY JUST PAY THEM UNDER THE TABLE.  SO THEY CAN GET THE WHOLE THING FOR THEM SELFS.  THE GOVERNMENTS DONT GIVE A CRAP ABOUT US JUST WHAT THEY CAN GET OUT OF US.
579897
Government debt\nFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia\n(Redirected from National debt)\nJump to: navigation, search\n\nGovernment debt (also known as public debt or national debt) is money owed by any level of government; either central government, federal government, municipal government or local government.\n\nAs the government represents the people, government debt can be seen as an indirect debt of the tax payers.\n\nGovernment debt can be categorized as internal debt, owed to lenders within the country, and external debt, owed to foreign lenders. Governments usually borrow by issuing securities such as government bonds and bills. Less credit worthy countries sometimes borrow directly from commercial banks or supranational institutions. Some people consider all government liabilities, including future pension payments and payments for goods and services the government has contracted for but not yet paid, as government debt.\n\nAnother common division of government debt is by duration. Short term debt is generally considered to be one year or less, long term is more than ten years. Medium term debt falls in the middle.\nContents\n[hide]\n\n    * 1 Government and sovereign bonds\n    * 2 Municipal, provincial or state bonds\n    * 3 Denominated in reserve currencies\n    * 4 Risk\n    * 5 Clearing and defaults\n    * 6 Structure\n    * 7 Scale\n    * 8 Problems\n    * 9 Implicit debt\n    * 10 See also\n    * 11 References\n    * 12 External links\n          o 12.1 United States\n          o 12.2 Global\n\n[edit]\n\nGovernment and sovereign bonds\n\nMain articles: government bond and sovereign bond\n\nA government bond is a bond issued by a national government denominated in the country's domestic currency. Bonds issued by national governments in foreign currencies are normally referred to as sovereign bonds. Government bonds are usually considered risk-free bonds, because the government can raise taxes, reduce spending, or simply print more money to redeem the bond at maturity. Investors in sovereign bonds have the additional risk that the issuer is unable to obtain foreign currency to redeem the bonds.\n[edit]\n\nMunicipal, provincial or state bonds\n\n    Further information: Municipal bond\n\nMunicipal bonds or "munis" in the United States are debt securities issued by local governments (municipalities).\n[edit]\n\nDenominated in reserve currencies\n\nGovernments borrow money in a currency for which the demand is strongest. The advantage of issuing bonds in a currency such as the euro or the US dollar, is that the universe of investors for the bonds is very large. Countries such as the United States, France and Germany have only issued in their domestic currency. Relatively few investors are willing to invest in currencies that do not have a long track-record of stability. The disadvantage for a government issuing bonds in a foreign currency, is that there is a risk that they will not be able to obtain the foreign currency to pay the interest or redeem the bonds. In 1997/1998, during the Asian financial crisis this became a serious problem when many countries were unable to keep their exchange rate fixed due to speculative attacks.\n[edit]\n\nRisk\n\n    Main article: Credit risk\n\nLendings to a national government in the country's own sovereign currency are often considered "risk free" and are made at a so-called "risk-free interest rate". This is because the debt and interest can be repaid by raising taxes, a reduction in spending, or failing that by simply printing more money. Naturally, this would increase inflation and reduce the value of the invested capital. An extreme example of this is provided by Weimar Germany of 1920s which suffered from hyperinflation due to its government's inability to pay the national debt.\n\nA politically unstable state is anything but risk-free as it may, being sovereign, cease its payments with impunity. Famous examples of this phenomenon ar
503097
Both. It takes money out of our economy, and tries to 'reform' other countries instead of largely leaving them to their own devices, breeds passivity in those countries on solving problems and dependency. Our country's 8, going on 9 trillion in the hole, and if you do the math, you find that the damage that debt can do is only going to accelerate. Even if the interest on 9 trillion drops from 4% to 1%, 1% of a trillion dollars is still a truckload of money. Several truckloads, actually. As Congress stupidly signs anything put in front of em(old folks will sign ANYTHING), and the debt spins up to 13, 14, 20 trillion dollars in unpayable red ink, you're going to see the beginning of The End for this country. The shift is already on to invest in euros instead of dollars. The european countries have the debt stuff WRITTEN INTO THEIR CONSTITUTION. Maybe it's time for america to have such and amendment. Hey, Congress, sign this! LOLOL
1172643
You'll pay about 18-20% interest.  Unless you paid it back fairly quickly, you could end up paying back a huge amount of money in interest. If at all possible, I would hold off on whatever it is you want to buy until you have the cash.
948011
no they will cut the benefit,so you repay the outstanding balance back - i.e 5 pound a week etc.
15293
National Debt and Income Inequality are not really related.\n\nIn theory lower national debt should increase economic growth.  This would help increase the income of the nation as a whole, but the actual distribution of that income would depend on other policies. \n\nAlso how the nation decided to go about paying off its national debt would have a impact on after tax income inequality, but could be used to ether increase of decrees this inequality.  It would just depend on the policy itself.\n\nSo I would say no, paying off national debt in and of itself would have no real impact on income inequality.
1151280
I heard 25% of our deficit is owed to Japan and China.  I don't know the exact amount per country.
726691
Neither is good or bad. You really need to get away from this shallow method of thinking.\n\nUnless you consider how the debts were incurred, what the economic and geopolitical conditions were, then you'll never have a clue as to understanding national debt.\n\nYou voted Democrat, didn't you? Obvious.
922152
You said you wanted serious answers, so I'll take you at your word. It's not nearly as bad as you think. Cheer up.\n\nYes, America owes trillions. But please remember three points:\n\n1. The vast majority of that debt is not owed to foreign nations. Over two-thirds of it is owed to the American people themselves. Everyone American who purchases US Savings Bonds or Treasury Bonds (T-Bills) is purchasing a portion of that debt.\n\n2. The American economy is worth approximately 3 trillion dollars a year. That means the US has about a two-to-one debt ratio. Putting that in micro-economic terms, it's the equivalent of someone who brings in 100k a year, and whose only debt is a 200k mortgage. Any economist would tell you that that person is doing very well indeed. Most people's debt ratio is far higher.\n\n3. The US has the lowest debt ratio of any industrialized country. No other country in europe or anyplace else has that little debt relative to the size of its economy.\n\nAs to your comments about the cost of the war. Yes, for now it's not cheap. But this is not a permanent expense. In a few years it will go away. So in the short term -- you're right -- it calls for a little belt tightening; but in the long run, it's not much to worry about.\n\nAlso, the amount of the budget consumed by all of the social-welfare programs of the US (minus Medicare and Social Security) amounts to no more than 3% of the annual budget. everyone always thinks its more; but seriously, it's a very small percentage. In Britain, social welfare costs are about 18% of the total budget. In France, about 22%; and I could go on, but I think you get my point.\n\nAs to your comments about trade. Actually, people are lining up to trade with America. America leads the world in Computer hardware and software sales. The agricultural industries of America sell to the world. While America has lost manufacturing jobs over the years -- this is not to worry, as America has transformed itself into the first Post-Industrial society, providing services to clients around the world that earn American companies hundreds of billions every year.\n\nAnd finally, yes, oil is a problem. But it's not just America's problem, it's a problem for everyone else as well. The greatest challenge of this century is going to find the substitute for the world's addiction to petrolium. But here's the good news. Because America has one of the strongest economies on earth, It's Americans who will have the greatest resources to come up with an answer. And that answer having been been found, will make Americans even better off tomorrow.\n\nDon't believe all the bad news you hear on the news. Remember, people in the media want ratings points. And they don't get viewers by concentrating on good news -- only bad. There's plenty of good news out there. Trust me.\n\nHope this answer helps. Cheers, mate.
541558
I would think they would.  We are the laughing stock of the world now thanks to him.  We have fallen to an all time low.  Wait until the Chinese and the Japanese pull in their markers.  25% of our National debt is owned to them. \nIf they don't call it in, in the future, they will loan money to countries that have a better future.
230569
By using the buck wisely.  Dont waste.  We're such a wasteful, throw-away society.  It's cheaper to toss it, then fix it.  If you dont use it, give it to someone who can n will.\nCharge only what you're able to pay off...when the bill comes.  Or you wind up never paying the bill off.  But rather only the interest.  And interest is a killer. Do you think it's ok to pay for nothing in return?
812598
The national debt was created by buying weapons and food during world war two, and we finished paying it in 1998. However, France, Germany and Japan were given allowed to drop their debts by the kind US of A after the war, seems that we were the only dumb idiots who payed them. It cost us most of the inventions (jet engine, TV, computer, etc,) and we now have to sit down and listen to the Americans telling us how they have re-written our history, and how wonderful it has been living on the money we sent to them for 60 years, to help us win the Western war, which they like to take credit for as well.\n\nI feel sorry for Russia, who did most of the fighting, and are just starting to climb out of the economic hole they dug themselves into fighting Hitler and then the cold war paranoia.
1059385
well, there are two kinds of debt. Domestic and international. So yeah, come to think of it who does the US owe money to? Maybe they haven't been paying contractors or national lending organizations, or maybe they owe the IMF or World Bank some money.
327732
the debt is at it's highest in NUMBERS, but not in RATIO TO THE GNP. the highest debt america incountered in money over gnp is the jfk/johnson era. talk about cut programs.
701265
Take a look at the graph. The national debt after WW2 was huge and they needed a way to pay it down. It worked for a while as the US became more productive the debt to GDP ratio steadily declined until 1980. Its been increasing since then except for a short period during the Dot.com boom.\n\nhttp://zfacts.com/p/318.html
449646
HERE IS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS FOR US!! When the Bush check comes due, younger generations can expect a weaker job market, fewer public services, and a declining standard of living. To put the deficits in perspective, five years from now the average family’s share of the national debt will be more than $84,000, compared to a projected $500 per family when Bush took office.  The picture for America’s children is grim. Large, sustained deficits eventually suck up national savings, meaning less money for education and training of young people and workers and lower investment in other economic sectors. As deficits continue, huge chunks of taxpayer dollars will be diverted from education and health programs to service the national debt. Interest rates will rise and living standards will decline.