Reducing the National Debt

[DontBeStupid]

True, my State repudiated its debt in the 1880's - I understand ilDuce repudiated his COUNTRY's debt in the 30's (I think)

I do think the consequences would be a disaster however

No need to do that either.

If we hand our grandkids a debt of $20T when they have a GDP of $45T, absolutely no one will be complaining.

I see... your solution is to propose fantastic scenarios that have absolutely no chance of actually happening, and then pretend you've offered a real solution.



With the current deficits, $20T debt will be here is 5 years or less.
How, exactly, do you propose tripling our GDP by 2017?

I don't. We don't have to.

Rolling back the Bush Tax Rates coupled with decent economic growth and some targeted cuts could easily put us with no deficit by 2017. Then we just maintain it. We don't pay down the debt and we don't add to it.

 

[blastoff]

Actually we're in a whole lot deeper shit than just $16 TRILLION.

Just on the federal level you have to also consider the trillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities we've got and add that to the pile. Just social security and medicare alone account for another $40+ TRILLION. And other unfunded obligations bring to total to about $60 TRILLION.

Then we've got the various unfunded liabilities of the states too. What that adds I haven't a clue and really don't think I want to know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No need to do that either.

If we hand our grandkids a debt of $20T when they have a GDP of $45T, absolutely no one will be complaining.

I see... your solution is to propose fantastic scenarios that have absolutely no chance of actually happening, and then pretend you've offered a real solution.

With the current deficits, $20T debt will be here is 5 years or less.
How, exactly, do you propose tripling our GDP by 2017?

I don't. We don't have to.
Rolling back the Bush Tax Rates coupled with decent economic growth and some targeted cuts could easily put us with no deficit by 2017.

Thus, the fantasy. Thank you for the confirmation of my suspicions.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I see... your solution is to propose fantastic scenarios that have absolutely no chance of actually happening, and then pretend you've offered a real solution.

With the current deficits, $20T debt will be here is 5 years or less.
How, exactly, do you propose tripling our GDP by 2017?

I don't. We don't have to.
Rolling back the Bush Tax Rates coupled with decent economic growth and some targeted cuts could easily put us with no deficit by 2017.

Thus, the fantasy. Thank you for the confirmation of my suspicions.

What fantasy? Remember now, you're the one calling for the debt to be paid off completely while giving no reason to support doing that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't. We don't have to.
Rolling back the Bush Tax Rates coupled with decent economic growth and some targeted cuts could easily put us with no deficit by 2017.

Thus, the fantasy. Thank you for the confirmation of my suspicions.

What fantasy?

That by rolling back the Bush Tax Rates coupled with decent economic growth and some targeted cuts could easily put us with no deficit by 2017.

The Bush-era tax cuts (that were extended by The Obama), since their inception in 2001, have "cost" a little over $2T - or about 1.5 years of current deficits.

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post

By repealing those tax cuts, you will reduce the current $1400B deficits by an average of $200B, leaving $1200B in deficits.

Show me the spending cuts you want to make, calculate the growth necessary to increase revenue to the point where the deficit is zeroed by the end of 2017, and then show how you plan to achieve that growth. Note that this -should- be easy for you to do.

 

[kiwiman127]

Increasing the tax base would be a great place to start. C'mon private sector... bring back the good paying jobs so currently unemployed people can start doing their part in lowering the National Debt.

Oh.... that's right. They are allowed to profiteer.. I forgot.

Yes increasing the tax base.. implementing the flat tax with zero exceptions, zero loopholes, and no salary floor

BUT that is only a start... because we have a spending problem... we have to reduce the spending and the size of government DRASTICALLY for ANYTHING to work in debt reduction

You suggest a flat tax that's all encompassing. At what rate would the tax be? Under Perry's plan, the middle and lower classes would have the option to stay with the current format, thus not lowering their tax or going to the fixed 20% and raising their taxes. And if a person changes from the old format to the new format, they are stuck in the new flat tax format forever.

The bottomloine of Perry's tax cut would be the middle clas and the poor would not see a tax cut but the wealthy would.
However, a majority of economists calculate that the revenues would not cover the cost of running government, let alone reduce the deficit, it would aldd to the deficit.

Here's an excerpt which discusses Perry's tax plan. It says some good things and addresses the bad things.

Rick Perry Tax Plan: What Do Economists Think of His Optional Flat Tax?

<snip>

Can Perry's Tax Plan Lead to a Balanced Budget?

That task becomes even more daunting with Perry's promises to balance the budget and cut spending to 18 percent of GDP by 2020, but Perry insists it is possible.

"It will be an extremely difficult task exacerbated by the current economic crisis and our need for significant tax cuts to spur growth," he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Tuesday. "But that growth is what will get us to balance, if we are willing to make the hard decisions of cutting."

Those hard decisions could include slashing anything from education spending to military spending to popular entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Perry argues that after a few years, the economic growth resulting from his plan would more than make up for the lost revenue.

"Lower, flatter taxes could generate both more revenue than the current tax code and significantly more economic growth over time," the John Dunham and Associates analysis concluded. "With increasing demands on the federal government from growing entitlements, higher pension expenses and interest on the debt, it will be necessary to increase the size of the economy -- and the tax base -- in order to generate significantly higher revenues."

Reuters columnist James Pethokoukis made the same argument in a blog post for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "The numbers look better the further out you go as the Perry economy far outpaces the CBO economy long term," Pethokoukis wrote. "And even under the static score [not accounting for economic growth], revenues return to their long-term average."

But many tax experts -- even some who supported Perry's proposals overall -- said revenue neutrality was an important component of a sustainable tax plan.

"The argument is, well, this is going to grow the economy and create jobs, and that's fine. I think it will help business to have a simpler world and have a simpler understanding of the tax code and what's expected of them," Zerbe said. "But we all recognize we have to pay for things."

Questions Whether Taxes Cuts Will Pay for Themselves

Williams, from the Urban Institute, called Perry's estimates of economic growth unrealistically high. Tax cuts will lead to growth, he said, but not enough to make up for the lost revenue.

"They say the economy's going to grow so fast we'll have money coming out of our ears -- but I think economists generally agree that tax cuts will not pay for themselves," Williams said. "We do believe that simpler taxes and flatter taxes will cause the economy to grow faster, but not so much faster as to recoup all the tax losses. The estimates by the Perry campaign just aren't consistent with mainstream economics."
Rick Perry Tax Plan: What Do Economists Think of His Optional Flat Tax? - International Business Times

 

[DiamondDave]

There is no reason we need to pay down our national debt.

I see DiamondDave is right on schedule. I post a comment and he neg reps it, regardless of content.

See, if Dave had read my post and thought about it, he would have realized that the vast majority of our National Debt we owe to ourselves in the form of bonds. For most people, these bonds offer a safe investment vehicle that they can use to help in retirement. Paying off the debt means eliminating ALL of these bonds. Eliminating a safe retirement option for many Americans.

Why?

Why Dave? Why do you not want Americans to be able to safely save for retirement? Do you want them to only be able to go to Wall Street? Is that it?

We've heard you repeat your bullshit over and over and over again... does not make it anything more than bullshit still

 

[DiamondDave]

Increasing the tax base would be a great place to start. C'mon private sector... bring back the good paying jobs so currently unemployed people can start doing their part in lowering the National Debt.

Oh.... that's right. They are allowed to profiteer.. I forgot.

Yes increasing the tax base.. implementing the flat tax with zero exceptions, zero loopholes, and no salary floor

BUT that is only a start... because we have a spending problem... we have to reduce the spending and the size of government DRASTICALLY for ANYTHING to work in debt reduction

You suggest a flat tax that's all encompassing. At what rate would the tax be? Under Perry's plan, the middle and lower classes would have the option to stay with the current format, thus not lowering their tax or going to the fixed 20% and raising their taxes. And if a person changes from the old format to the new format, they are stuck in the new flat tax format forever.

The bottomloine of Perry's tax cut would be the middle clas and the poor would not see a tax cut but the wealthy would.
However, a majority of economists calculate that the revenues would not cover the cost of running government, let alone reduce the deficit, it would aldd to the deficit.

Here's an excerpt which discusses Perry's tax plan. It says some good things and addresses the bad things.

Rick Perry Tax Plan: What Do Economists Think of His Optional Flat Tax?

<snip>

Can Perry's Tax Plan Lead to a Balanced Budget?

That task becomes even more daunting with Perry's promises to balance the budget and cut spending to 18 percent of GDP by 2020, but Perry insists it is possible.

"It will be an extremely difficult task exacerbated by the current economic crisis and our need for significant tax cuts to spur growth," he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Tuesday. "But that growth is what will get us to balance, if we are willing to make the hard decisions of cutting."

Those hard decisions could include slashing anything from education spending to military spending to popular entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Perry argues that after a few years, the economic growth resulting from his plan would more than make up for the lost revenue.

"Lower, flatter taxes could generate both more revenue than the current tax code and significantly more economic growth over time," the John Dunham and Associates analysis concluded. "With increasing demands on the federal government from growing entitlements, higher pension expenses and interest on the debt, it will be necessary to increase the size of the economy -- and the tax base -- in order to generate significantly higher revenues."

Reuters columnist James Pethokoukis made the same argument in a blog post for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "The numbers look better the further out you go as the Perry economy far outpaces the CBO economy long term," Pethokoukis wrote. "And even under the static score [not accounting for economic growth], revenues return to their long-term average."

But many tax experts -- even some who supported Perry's proposals overall -- said revenue neutrality was an important component of a sustainable tax plan.

"The argument is, well, this is going to grow the economy and create jobs, and that's fine. I think it will help business to have a simpler world and have a simpler understanding of the tax code and what's expected of them," Zerbe said. "But we all recognize we have to pay for things."

Questions Whether Taxes Cuts Will Pay for Themselves

Williams, from the Urban Institute, called Perry's estimates of economic growth unrealistically high. Tax cuts will lead to growth, he said, but not enough to make up for the lost revenue.

"They say the economy's going to grow so fast we'll have money coming out of our ears -- but I think economists generally agree that tax cuts will not pay for themselves," Williams said. "We do believe that simpler taxes and flatter taxes will cause the economy to grow faster, but not so much faster as to recoup all the tax losses. The estimates by the Perry campaign just aren't consistent with mainstream economics."
Rick Perry Tax Plan: What Do Economists Think of His Optional Flat Tax? - International Business Times

What rate??... now that depends completely on the budget, don't it??.... wanna lower the rate, lower the budget.... and I sure as hell believe that when everyone has a stake in it, it is more likely that most everyone would be calling for cuts in spending... easy to support more spending when you kick nothing in to pay for it

 

[Steelplate]

Well, if we are negging people for repetitive bullshit, then we all should have a negative rating. We all have our political ideology. Just because you don't like ours and I don't like yours doesn't mean I'm going to neg you.

In fact... I can only recall a handful of times I've ever negged at all. I respect you viewpoint... I disagree with it, but I respect it. You are my fellow countryman and have the right to feel any way you want. But... so do people like me.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Thus, the fantasy. Thank you for the confirmation of my suspicions.

What fantasy?

That by rolling back the Bush Tax Rates coupled with decent economic growth and some targeted cuts could easily put us with no deficit by 2017.

The Bush-era tax cuts (that were extended by The Obama), since their inception in 2001, have "cost" a little over $2T - or about 1.5 years of current deficits.

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post

By repealing those tax cuts, you will reduce the current $1400B deficits by an average of $200B, leaving $1200B in deficits.

Show me the spending cuts you want to make, calculate the growth necessary to increase revenue to the point where the deficit is zeroed by the end of 2017, and then show how you plan to achieve that growth. Note that this -should- be easy for you to do.

GDP in 2017 could easily be $18T with no help. That's less than 4% growth per year. Unemployment could also be at 5% with no help. Get rid of all tax cuts from both Bush and Obama. Return us to Clinton levels. That should put us at 19% of $18T in revenue, or $3.42T. Total spending in 2010 was $3.456T, so we're practically deficit free just from holding spending and repealing tax cuts. Of course, we can't realistically hold spending for 5 years, so what else could we do?

We borrow $1T over 5 years and put it into improving our infrastructure. For real this time. Real shovel ready jobs across the country. This increases our GDP and guarantees people find jobs. It also puts our GDP in 2017 at least to $19T (most likely higher) and that gives us at least $3.6T in revenue that year.

What then?

Cut $100B from Defense this year. Those cuts have already been identified and would not harm our security. Save $500B by 2017.
Pay for Medicare Part D. The law was put in place with no way of paying for it. That's another $50B per year at least for $250B savings by 2017.
End all corporate welfare. Even Cato puts it at least at $100B per year. Another $500B in savings by 2017.

So where does that leave us?

It's 2017. We have a GDP of $19T and 5% unemployment and tax revenue of $3.6T. Based on the few cuts I mentioned, and capping at that revenue point, we could have a 12% increase in the budget during that time and still be balanced.

And this was napkin math. I didn't even have to make any hard decisions.

Now, care to explain to all of us why you believe the debt must be paid off in full?

 

[DontBeStupid]

There is no reason we need to pay down our national debt.

I see DiamondDave is right on schedule. I post a comment and he neg reps it, regardless of content.

See, if Dave had read my post and thought about it, he would have realized that the vast majority of our National Debt we owe to ourselves in the form of bonds. For most people, these bonds offer a safe investment vehicle that they can use to help in retirement. Paying off the debt means eliminating ALL of these bonds. Eliminating a safe retirement option for many Americans.

Why?

Why Dave? Why do you not want Americans to be able to safely save for retirement? Do you want them to only be able to go to Wall Street? Is that it?

We've heard you repeat your bullshit over and over and over again... does not make it anything more than bullshit still

I repeat it because it's true. There is no need for us to pay off the national debt.

You know, instead of ignoring my posts and neg repping me every time, you could, just once, try discussing the topic with me. You might learn something.

 

[kiwiman127]

Yes increasing the tax base.. implementing the flat tax with zero exceptions, zero loopholes, and no salary floor

BUT that is only a start... because we have a spending problem... we have to reduce the spending and the size of government DRASTICALLY for ANYTHING to work in debt reduction

You suggest a flat tax that's all encompassing. At what rate would the tax be? Under Perry's plan, the middle and lower classes would have the option to stay with the current format, thus not lowering their tax or going to the fixed 20% and raising their taxes. And if a person changes from the old format to the new format, they are stuck in the new flat tax format forever.

The bottomloine of Perry's tax cut would be the middle clas and the poor would not see a tax cut but the wealthy would.
However, a majority of economists calculate that the revenues would not cover the cost of running government, let alone reduce the deficit, it would aldd to the deficit.

Here's an excerpt which discusses Perry's tax plan. It says some good things and addresses the bad things. Any economist will attest to that.

Rick Perry Tax Plan: What Do Economists Think of His Optional Flat Tax?

<snip>

Can Perry's Tax Plan Lead to a Balanced Budget?

That task becomes even more daunting with Perry's promises to balance the budget and cut spending to 18 percent of GDP by 2020, but Perry insists it is possible.

"It will be an extremely difficult task exacerbated by the current economic crisis and our need for significant tax cuts to spur growth," he wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Tuesday. "But that growth is what will get us to balance, if we are willing to make the hard decisions of cutting."

Those hard decisions could include slashing anything from education spending to military spending to popular entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Perry argues that after a few years, the economic growth resulting from his plan would more than make up for the lost revenue.

"Lower, flatter taxes could generate both more revenue than the current tax code and significantly more economic growth over time," the John Dunham and Associates analysis concluded. "With increasing demands on the federal government from growing entitlements, higher pension expenses and interest on the debt, it will be necessary to increase the size of the economy -- and the tax base -- in order to generate significantly higher revenues."

Reuters columnist James Pethokoukis made the same argument in a blog post for the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. "The numbers look better the further out you go as the Perry economy far outpaces the CBO economy long term," Pethokoukis wrote. "And even under the static score [not accounting for economic growth], revenues return to their long-term average."

But many tax experts -- even some who supported Perry's proposals overall -- said revenue neutrality was an important component of a sustainable tax plan.

"The argument is, well, this is going to grow the economy and create jobs, and that's fine. I think it will help business to have a simpler world and have a simpler understanding of the tax code and what's expected of them," Zerbe said. "But we all recognize we have to pay for things."

Questions Whether Taxes Cuts Will Pay for Themselves

Williams, from the Urban Institute, called Perry's estimates of economic growth unrealistically high. Tax cuts will lead to growth, he said, but not enough to make up for the lost revenue.

"They say the economy's going to grow so fast we'll have money coming out of our ears -- but I think economists generally agree that tax cuts will not pay for themselves," Williams said. "We do believe that simpler taxes and flatter taxes will cause the economy to grow faster, but not so much faster as to recoup all the tax losses. The estimates by the Perry campaign just aren't consistent with mainstream economics."
Rick Perry Tax Plan: What Do Economists Think of His Optional Flat Tax? - International Business Times

What rate??... now that depends completely on the budget, don't it??.... wanna lower the rate, lower the budget.... and I sure as hell believe that when everyone has a stake in it, it is more likely that most everyone would be calling for cuts in spending... easy to support more spending when you kick nothing in to pay for it

I'm all for cuts in spending but I'm not for "starving the beast".

If government spending is cut to any serious degree, that lowers the GDP and slows down the economy. The UK is a perfect example of that. They made drastic cuts, it slowed growth and lowered the GDP, now many economists are predicting a new recession in the UK in 2012.

The debt is a problem, growing the economy is a bigger issue. Without growth, you can't lower the debt.

 

[merrill]

What about consecutive bailouts that repubs brought on the taxpayers?

* Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.
The Bush family and the S&L (Savings and Loan) Scandal

* Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.
What is the difference between a Ponzi scheme and a housing bubble? | Dollars & Sense

* Bush/Cheney implied more than ONLY 3 financial institutions instead of several were at risk so why $700 billion in bail out money? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?
"Good Billions After Bad" - One Year After Wall Street Bailout, Pulitzer Winners Barlett and Steele Investigate Where All the Money Went


5. Tax cuts= the ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy which do nothing to make an economy strong or produce jobs. Tax cuts are a tax increase to others in order to make up the loss in revenue = duped again.

Still A Bad Idea = ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class = duped one more time.
Still a Bad Idea | Dollars & Sense

In the end big debt and super duper bailouts were the results which does not seem to bother Republicans, as long as they are in power.

 

[merrill]

If all levels of government would cut corporate welfare and invest this money in IMPROVED Medicare Single Payer Insurance for ALL :

1. many of us would be saving thousands of dollars annually

2. big business and small business could operate for less

3. all governments and school districts could cut operating expenses substantially

4. employed blue and white collar workers would be healthier thus more productive

5. All humans would have necessary healthcare 24/7

6. in general OUR cost of living would decrease across the board

7. New industry,small business and jobs would develop

Thus our tax dollars would be invested in our local communities providing a jump start to economic growth that has been squandered as a result of corp welfare by reckless big governments at city,state and federal levels.

 

[merrill]

Corporate subsidies is the spending that need to be cut. This type of socialism does not pay back nor generate jobs.

USA corporations should become models of the Free Market instead of models representing tax dollar moochers. This conversation is missing from the campaigns.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Corporate subsidies is the spending that need to be cut. This type of socialism does not pay back nor generate jobs.

USA corporations should become models of the Free Market instead of models representing tax dollar moochers. This conversation is missing from the campaigns.

You know what else is missing? Anyone explaining why the debt MUST be paid off.

Come on Dave and M14. Where are your explanations?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Show me the spending cuts you want to make, calculate the growth necessary to increase revenue to the point where the deficit is zeroed by the end of 2017, and then show how you plan to achieve that growth. Note that this -should- be easy for you to do.

And this was napkin math. I didn't even have to make any hard decisions.

If by "napalm math" you mean "arguing based on the assumption of fantasy-based perfect conditions", then yes.

You have to make up for $1200B in yearly deficits by 2017, after saving $200B by repealing The Obama's tax cut, to balance the budget by 2017.

I asked you to show me the spending cuts you want to make.
Your list:

-Cut $100B from Defense this year.
-End all corporate welfare. Even Cato puts it at least at $100B per year.
-Pay for Medicare Part D. That's another $50B per year

Presuming for the moment that you can actually do this, that takes you to $950B/yr --- assuming no other changes or increases inspending anywhere else --- which then, you argue, can be covered by increases in revenue from economic growth and full employment.

FY2010 economy-based revenue - primarily income tax and corporate taxes - totalled $1090T in FY2010, or 7.5% of the GDP. Naturally, as part of the issue here is that a poor economy creates a high uemployment rate which loweres revenues, we can adjust that 7.5% GDP to reflect the "full employment" level of 2000, whoch saw a revenue rate of 12.3 %, +64% revenue. So, a full-emplyment revenue adjustment gets you an additional $697B, leaving you with $250B in additional necessary to balance the budget.

Assuming that the additional $250B represents a similar 12.3% draw from the GDP, the GDP will need to expand by $2032B by 2017. GDP at the end of III/2010 was 15.176T, so GDP at the end of IV/2016 (21 quarters) will need to be 17.208T, or 13.4% - which equates to a contant ~2.5% growth 2012-2016.

So...
IF
1: ALL other spending is held at current levels
2: "Full employment" took effect in IV/2011
3: "Full employment" is maintained from then until the end of 2016
4: The economy grows at ~2.5% for each of the next 5 years, starting in IV/2011
THEN
Your 'plan' to balance the budget by 2017 has a chance.

Given that you have not shown how you 'plan' to achive these perfect conditions, your 'plan' is just wishful thinking; given that none of these perfect conditions can or will be met, your 'plan' fails.

As I said:
Your solution is to propose fantastic scenarios that have absolutely no chance of actually happening, and then pretend you've offered a real solution.

Now, care to explain to all of us why you believe the debt must be paid off in full?

I will, as soon as you show where I espouned such a belief.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Given that you have not shown how you 'plan' to achive these perfect conditions, your 'plan' is just wishful thinking; given that none of these perfect conditions can or will be met, your 'plan' fails.

Oh. You now want a perfect plan with a 100% success rate? Unless you can predict the future, that's not possible. It's also not what you asked me to show. Even you agree, my napkin math plan has a chance. If you want, we could continue to discuss areas to cut and areas to tax to increase revenue. That would give my plan a better chance. Already though, I've shown it is possible, something you didn't even consider.

Now, care to explain to all of us why you believe the debt must be paid off in full?

I will, as soon as you show where I espouned such a belief.

eventually the debt will cause an economic and then societal and then governmental collapse

Unless you want a societal and governmental collapse, I think it a safe assumption that you want the debt paid off and can explain then why not doing so would cause the damage you claim.

So which is it? Do you want the debt paid off? Or do you want the country to collapse?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh. You now want a perfect plan with a 100% success rate? Unless you can predict the future, that's not possible.

As I said: Your plan fails as the assumptions it is based on are unsound.
Was their something else? Maybe you'd like to submit a plan based on reality rather than a set of fantasy assumptions?

I will, as soon as you show where I espouned such a belief.

eventually the debt will cause an economic and then societal and then governmental collapse

OK.. so where's the part where I said it needs to be paid off?

So which is it? Do you want the debt paid off? Or do you want the country to collapse?

False dichotomy.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Oh. You now want a perfect plan with a 100% success rate? Unless you can predict the future, that's not possible.

As I said: Your plan fails as the assumptions it is based on are unsound.
Was their something else? Maybe you'd like to submit a plan based on reality rather than a set of fantasy assumptions?

I will, as soon as you show where I espouned such a belief.

OK.. so where's the part where I said it needs to be paid off?

So which is it? Do you want the debt paid off? Or do you want the country to collapse?

False dichotomy.

heh heh ok ok. I get it.

I was under the impression you wanted to have an adult conversation. I was wrong. My bad.