If that is the plan, it's terrible. The majority of US debt is domestic.
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-own-the-most-u...
https://usafacts.org/articles/which-countries-own-the-most-u...
Domestic debt might not be such a big deal? Who is coming to collect?
Someone has to get screwed over when you do that, who do you suggest get screwed over?
What savings, USA just takes on more debt it hasn't saved anything.
Note the past tense as this advantage is now gone with Trump.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1600451
Not all policy is rational. Oftentimes it's atavistic. Surely you have noticed by now that Trump deals in emotional arguments, not reasoned ones.
No one collects the debt. It’s just redeeming treasury bonds. If they are no longer good then the sub prime crisis is going to look like a minor economic wrinkle.
Nobody cares about the big numbers when the wallets are empty.
Old people with retirement needs. A lot of that debt is borrowed from SS surpluses in the past, and now the system is actually in deficit (so needs what it lent out back and then some). I’m all for screwing over boomers, psychologically I’ve convinced myself they are responsible for Trump and this mess (not entirely true, but the boomers as a generation messed things up for us before Trump was president, anyways).
I'm not excited that 20% of federal revenue goes pay debt interest to some investors and stockholders. Especially when much of the original debt spending also went into the pockets of stockholders, sometimes the same ones.
Of course, the actual problem is lack of control and debt spending, not the fact that investors exist.
People say that public debt doesn't matter because it domestic, but the recipients and payers are different. It doesn't cancel out when I'm responsible for paying taxes and Vanguard or JPMorgan get the debt interest.
Wouldn’t this include average people’s pensions, IRAs, etc, too?
Foundationally, national debt is about passing costs into the future, which also creates another huge dichotomy in payers and beneficiaries. Minimal federal spending is on growth, so isn't really about investment as how much value can be extracted from one group to another, largely, but not entirely overlapping group.
I’m not sure if I’m following, but a (let’s say) 20% cut to the value of an average retiree’s pension account will hurt much _more_ than the same cut to a diversified wealthy person. This is simply because poorer people are affected more by fixed costs. I don’t see where the populist angle comes in. Shouldn’t the populist angle be about targeting the “elite” specifically?