The "National Debt" is not a problem.

It is not a problem at all. It would be if we were still on the gold standard. We're a fiat regime now, no longer limiting ourselves for no reason. Unlimited spending is silly, spending Is limited by real resources. However, we can afford to spend until we are at maximum output. You keep saying "government borrowing." China decided to get bonds with US dollars they've earned, what's the problem? You appear to be arguing from ideology, which I do not enjoy entertaining since ideology causes one to ignore simple facts. A minimum wage does indeed affect the labor market, increasing demand, causing some businesses to lay people off... Nothing is perfect, but all of the MW increases in US history have not led to a great "collapse" of the private/public sector, so I don't want to talk about that. 1.) Please explain how a country sovereign in its currency (fiat) can ever default. Wait.. I think I understand what you're arguing. You believe that the government has been taxing to pay for things. That's not how it works. Think of it this way. An entity has dollars in a treasury security and wants to move them to a reserve account, with a tiny bit of interest. Remember, all bonds "roll over" at different times. And since the entities holding bonds tend to never convert them to dollars to use in the economy, it's absurd to say "hyper inflation" will occur. In fact, hyper inflation has only ever occurred when connected to resource issues. When the economy can't produce enough to keep up with dollars added, of course inflation will occur. But we're nowhere near that point, and some numbers on a computer aren't going to change that. Bonds are safe because the us govt ensures they're a safe tool for entities to park dollars. Where do you think the dollars the government taxes to destroy come from? (That's right, taxes aren't "used" for anything, not operationally at the federal level.") A gold coin doesn't magically appear somewhere when the government gets your taxes, in fact, the government gets nothing of value. Taxes exist to regulate demand/control inflation/create a demand for the currency. It's all accounting when we hear about things like the trust fund.. I refuse to call the "national debt" "debt" in the common usage of the word. It's simply government bonds, and entities love having a safe place to park dollars. I don't want to flirt with conspiracy theories about China, we're talking about the united states government bonds. China is not going to "sell all of their bonds." I've heard this before, and it's never come to pass. Even with near 0 IR'S, china is still using their earned US dollars to get bonds. 3.) You really need to understand sectoral balances and stop going off of ideology. When the government spends more than it taxes, well, first of all, GDP increases, and the private sector gets plenty of liability free dollars. Of course, the private sector is already in loads of debt, but the private sector doesn't take on as much debt when we run deficits. You immediately assume I am in favor of higher taxes, a byproduct of your ideology. I am in favor of lower taxes and higher spending to get us to the point of full output, and from there, we adjust things. You are also assuming that the government has to take from somewhere else to add numbers to a spreadsheet. That is not the case. The private sector doesn't handle debt well, at all. I urge you to look into the private sector debt taken on during the clinton surplus, and the disaster that followed. We saw something similar recently.. Something about housing. Your ideology is creeping back in. Claiming the government is "perverse" is silly ideological.. nonsense. You make this assumption that the private sector handles debt better then the government, which can't be demonstrated to be true at all. In fact, every time we've run a surplus in united states history, the private sector has taken on large amounts of debt and recessions followed. This isn't debatable. Saying the government uses debt to "buy votes" is absurd. Without debt, none of us would have liability free US dollars. You claim that government spending doesn't create jobs.. I point you to the new deal/world war 2/infrastructure building up in the 50s/60s, the recent (weak) stimulus.. 4.) You assume speculative investments are a good thing. Demand is what drives economies, consumers. I am not in favor of higher taxes, not at this point, after all, taxes aren't used operationally to "fund" anything at the federal level. What??? The government "competing" for investment dollars?? The government has been creating dollars from thin air for decades, that is how WE the people and businesses have liability free dollars. Your idea that the government "takes from taxpayers" is ideological nonsense only relevant to the pre 30's. The government has to spend before it can tax. "Commie economics." I take an accounting perspective to the economy, and recognize that we're fiat, our currency is not pegged, and we've been spending for decades from thin air. This isn't debatable. Even ronald reagan loved deficits, and when they were cut, a recession occurred. Ain't that something? This isn't "commie economics" considering I support lower taxes. The economy would indeed collapse without the government, the private sector would lose its source of liability free dollars, and we would lose the public sector completely. Demand would drastically decrease due to those who spend the most, the poor/middle class, losing dollars. (Dollars get sucked up at the top if in circulation long enough, the government adds new dollars to compensate..) 5.) Utter absurdity. In fact, deficits directly represent THE GOVERNMENT SPENDING MORE THEN IT'S TAXING. And spending directly benefits the private sector, if the government is running a deficit. Economists agree a deficit goes hand in hand with less private sector debt/more private sector savings. Sectoral balances 101. 6.) The private sector cannot possibly provide enough growth to account for our trade deficit and the host of other things we have to deal with. Making almost religious claims about the private sector not ground in reality is foolish. Saying recessions are caused by government interference is absolute absurdity with no historical basis. Recessions come and go, and governments have to step in with Keynesian policies to make things right. We've had many recessions before we adopted keynesian policy, and every single one lasted longer then recessions after the GD. Every single time we've tried to cut the debt/drastically cut spending, a recession has followed. The private sector can't handle recessions well at all. 7.) The national debt is a representation of saved dollars, and it represents PEOPLE using their earned us dollars as they see fit. Parking the dollars in the form of bonds.