About a century ago, when my great-uncle arrived in Detroit, Americans did not worry about it. What has changed?
I don't mean to pick on you specifically, as you represent a majority of conservative Americans, but you are clueless about economics and remain stuck in a gold standard world that hasn't been our reality since '34 when FDR had to ditch the old regime to end the great depression and later to gear up for WWII. This was the most monumental event in the history of economics, but it is still mostly ignored, even by trained economists and politicians, to preserve the advantages the wealthy enjoy.
They don't hesitate to accept the largess from "big gubmint" spending, but sure do pitch a bitch when Congress attempts to comply with its constitutional mandate to "coin" the currency "for the general welfare" (Article 1: Section 8) and do something that improves the lot of anyone who isn't wealthy already.
With most Americans now doing low paying service work or gig work the old saw of "job creator" attached to wealth is wearing thin and only our seriously degraded educational system and 24/7 propaganda in the media has prevented a full scale revolt - - so far.
There are fuel taxes and licensing fees that are supposed to pay to maintain public roads and bridges. Should we not ask first why those roads and bridges have not been rebuilt?
States don't have the ability to spend in deficit as the federal government does. They are constrained by revenue but most of the burden of infrastructure is on them. Since we allow industry to abandon entire communities and states in their quest for lower labor or tax costs, leaving behind people anchored by houses or family, it is impossible for many states to provide modern infrastructure with their tax base decimated and much higher costs from an idle workforce.
The Washington Post claims that our infrastructure is “good” or “fair,” which means safe and usable conditions. Only 7.5% of highway bridges, mostly in low traffic areas, are classified as poor.
Firstly, you are quoting a well-known propaganda source, which is another unique feature of life in the US. Secondly, that number applies to structures still in service and indicates that they are "dangerous" to the public. What is an acceptable level of danger to you, or your children and grandchildren? Do you know which ones the study referred to so you can avoid them? Is this the standard the wealthiest country on earth (albeit horribly distributed) should set for itself?
Banks will lend the government those trillions, but banks do not have money. They have deposits from billionaires.
The monopoly issuer of a sovereign fiat currency never needs to "borrow" from anyone. In fact, it must spend the currency into existence in the private sector before it is available to "loan". Treasury bonds are "NOT" a funding mechanism for government and never have been.
They are welfare for the already wealthy and we should eliminate them and pay interest on excess reserves to save the confusion and propaganda factor involved because an accounting entity is labeled "debt". Any politician or economist that claims it will be a problem is 1) a liar, 2) too stupid for the job, 3) a combination of 1 & 2.
There is no debt owed by taxpayers. It is money created and not yet used to pay a federal tax since our nation's founding. It is our "net" money supply that is required to net save or retire private bank debt. It should be labeled "national savings" or "private monetary assets". The last seven times some ignorant politician or party attempted to "reduce" the debt with any success led immediately to a recession or depression.
$3 trillion is a lot of money. If borrowed by the government, it will not be available for private investments, which are usually more profitable than the governments’ bonds and energize the economy more than the government spending.
This is the most ridiculous mantra of the right wing that is only meant to delude the mostly already delusional. Investors "choose" to purchase Treasury bonds and our government spending in deficit provides the new money required. Nothing stops the investors from investing in "more profitable" investments. The government is the "source" of the capital to invest, not a competitor to investors.
More people will seek government assistance. Fewer people will believe that there is an option of getting better without the government’s help. It will deepen the dependence of Americans on the government. It will make the rich richer and the poor poorer.
There is a war being waged against the American worker and both political parties are complicit. This is why you never hear the truth about our economic system and instead get fed econ myths and obsolete gold standard thinking. This war is real and has been in play since the founding of our nation, and before. The illusion of democracy, at least for the white male majority, was all that stood between our government and the fate the French served to their leaders/oppressors.
How does one not depend on the government when it is the only source of net monetary assets the private sector has? When one's disabled veteran 50 yr old son only receives $500 pr month and is dependent upon you and your $1300 Social Security? When a $500 car repair is the defining line between you and bankruptcy but you can't afford the lawyer and fees anyway?
You, sir, are the poster child for privileged conservatives who got theirs and now expects everyone to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" but don't want to make it possible for them to afford boots, much less with anything as luxurious as straps. The economic lies and fairy tales about our government being "broke" when it can afford anything for sale denominated in US dollars are simply a way to keep the "little people" subservient to business and its wealthy shareholders.
Buckle up bucko, because the next revolution is going to be a dandy after the people figure out that all suffering that can be mitigated with spending is a political choice, not economics.
