Why does the United States keep borrowing money?

[Escanthea]

As everyone else has said, this is just how our economic model works, we borrow tons of money but we keep paying it back if the economy is good so none of the investors care, but the US government feels it needs that money because of the huge amount of money it requires to manage itself and the welfare of the people. The reason we don't just make the money ourselves is that it creates inflation.

[Grand Britannia]

Deficit spending is sometimes specifically used to assist the economically disadvantaged during a financial downturn, at least in an ideal situation. So not really.

In this case spending isn't the problem in the US. It's more or less in line with production. So spending more is idiotic.

What's so bad about spending? It's pretty much necessary if we want a full recovery from the great recession since we are still below optimal production according to the economic report to the president, so as far as I'm concerned they can continue spending as long as they keep the deficit under control. Debt isn't bad, either; majority of our debt comes from bond purchases and other such transactions between government departments, particularly Social Security since they can get more funds this way, so I don't really see the problem.

As everyone else has said, this is just how our economic model works, we borrow tons of money but we keep paying it back if the economy is good so none of the investors care, but the US government feels it needs that money because of the huge amount of money it requires to manage itself and the welfare of the people. The reason we don't just make the money ourselves is that it creates inflation.

Delicious default-free investment with good returns what's not to like?

[Flaxxony]

Better than that would be to just make them work instead of letting them scrounge off others... If you don't contribute don't expect to have others support you.

Bad idea is bad.

That bad idea has originated from antiquity due to effiency reasons, however as of the 20th century with machine production, that bad idea is no longer useful.

Alright I refuse to argue. That is absolutely ridiculous. Each person needs to at least contribute what they take

[Pandeeria]

Are you kidding me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers#Largest_public_and_private_employers_in_the_World

The military employs more then Walmart, one of the largest omnipresent corporations ever to exist.

Don't you understand this isn't CREATING any jobs. It is sucking labor from the private sector into a sector that is not contributing to the GDP more than it takes

You don't understand:

The private sector is already having issues creating jobs. Having hundreds of thousands more, potentially millions, unemployed would be horrific.

Also, the military spending does contribute to the GDP via military contracts to private businesses.

[Pandeeria]

Bad idea is bad.

That bad idea has originated from antiquity due to effiency reasons, however as of the 20th century with machine production, that bad idea is no longer useful.

Alright I refuse to argue. That is absolutely ridiculous. Each person needs to at least contribute what they take

As of the 20the century, that is simply not true.

If you refuse to argue because you've lost, then that's fine.

[Grand Britannia]

Are you kidding me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers#Largest_public_and_private_employers_in_the_World

The military employs more then Walmart, one of the largest omnipresent corporations ever to exist.

Don't you understand this isn't CREATING any jobs. It is sucking labor from the private sector into a sector that is not contributing to the GDP more than it takes

They get money they in turn spend on the private sector given our economy is consumer-driven, doesn't seem so bad.

[The Batorys]

Indeed.

I'm not opposed to the military, or even having a large military.

But it doesn't need to be as large as it is, and in my opinion, decreasing the military budget and increasing NASA's would be a better use of that funding. Since NASA depends heavily on aerospace industries, I think it would also mitigate the possible job losses of cutting the defense budget, while also, you know, making more money available for scientific and technological growth.

The military isn't really going to be much less effective if you cut its budget by 1.3% of the GDP (yeah, that's a significant cut, but it'll still be the most well-funded military on the planet), and NASA could do a lot more with a big boost.

Why do people act as if funding NASA has any importance to the US at all?

Why do people act as if building more fighter planes, missiles, and jets, that the US military has already said it doesn't actually need, should have any importance to the US at all?

[San Lumen]

Why do people act as if funding NASA has any importance to the US at all?

Why do people act as if building more fighter planes, missiles, and jets, that the US military has already said it doesn't actually need, should have any importance to the US at all?

Because that is spending that could be going elsewhere.

[Alyakia]

Bad idea is bad.

That bad idea has originated from antiquity due to effiency reasons, however as of the 20th century with machine production, that bad idea is no longer useful.

Alright I refuse to argue. That is absolutely ridiculous. Each person needs to at least contribute what they take

it is impossible for the private sector to grow without a pool of unemployed people to use when they expand. forcing people to work either forces them into unproductive jobs or actually takes jobs away from a person that would have otherwise been hired to do it. and that's not even going into the realm of the long-term disabled. your idea will literally never happen.

[Alyakia]

Are you kidding me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_employers#Largest_public_and_private_employers_in_the_World

The military employs more then Walmart, one of the largest omnipresent corporations ever to exist.

Don't you understand this isn't CREATING any jobs. It is sucking labor from the private sector into a sector that is not contributing to the GDP more than it takes

also lol this is always funny. only the private sector can create because reasons.

[Conserative Morality]

Why do people act as if building more fighter planes, missiles, and jets, that the US military has already said it doesn't actually need, should have any importance to the US at all?

We need stealth fighters to fight the Russkies, don't you know?

[The Batorys]

Why do people act as if funding NASA has any importance to the US at all?

Because NASA's research has significant economic benefits?

That and it's a national institution; a representation of our will and our reach.

Yeah, also this.

It's weird how people think that spending on the military just to create jobs in those industries is perfectly fine and dandy, but spending on NASA, which employs in many cases those very same industries, is somehow wasteful, when the latter has actually led to some pretty great things.

[United Earthlings]

I don't understand why the United States keeps borrowing money.

U.S. Government Receipts {AKA Taxes} for FY15 Federal Budget: $3,337 billion dollars {aka $3.337 trillion dollars}
U.S. Government Outlays {AKA Spending} for FY15 Federal Budget: $3,901 billion dollars {aka $3.901 trillion dollars}
U.S. Government Deficit for FY15 Federal Budget: $564 billion dollars

Any Questions?

If you really feel lack racking your head against the wall, here's the summary that breaks it all down, which btw is where I got the numbers from. Have fun.

If you really want to have some fun, Here's every agency and department the U.S. Government maintains that contributes to those Outlays. Triple the fun...

[Spoder]

Because NASA's research has significant economic benefits?

That and it's a national institution; a representation of our will and our reach.

Yeah, also this.

It's weird how people think that spending on the military just to create jobs in those industries is perfectly fine and dandy, but spending on NASA, which employs in many cases those very same industries, is somehow wasteful, when the latter has actually led to some pretty great things.

I never said spending all that money on the military was great.

I only called into question the idea of spending money on NASA.

[San Lumen]

NASA does great things. its funding could actually help save the world one day.

[Sebastianbourg]

1) Governments aren't businesses or households! Their purpose isn't to return a profit but provide the necessary services to the citizenry; sure, it's very good if there's a surplus but it is not a necessity.
2) Without government spending in times of economic unease there's a very high likelihood of the economy deteriorating further. Ideally, countries should save the money they get from surpluses in times of abundance to pay for the extra spending in times of crisis but as I said previously governments aren't businesses.

PS: You might want to read a bit about John Maynard Keynes.

[Nord Amour]

Because the government is incompetent and inefficient?

[Shaggai]

Because the government is incompetent and inefficient?

Wrong. It's because this isn't ordinary debt. The government isn't out to turn a profit, as someone above said. If the government is actually making money, then they're not spending it on useful things. Of course, it's bad if there's too much of a deficit, but debt isn't bad in and of itself.

[Nord Amour]

Because the government is incompetent and inefficient?

Wrong. It's because this isn't ordinary debt. The government isn't out to turn a profit, as someone above said. If the government is actually making money, then they're not spending it on useful things. Of course, it's bad if there's too much of a deficit, but debt isn't bad in and of itself.

Maybe not, but it becomes a problem when said government wants repayment for its incredible feats of nonsense.

[Shaggai]

Wrong. It's because this isn't ordinary debt. The government isn't out to turn a profit, as someone above said. If the government is actually making money, then they're not spending it on useful things. Of course, it's bad if there's too much of a deficit, but debt isn't bad in and of itself.

Maybe not, but it becomes a problem when said government wants repayment for its incredible feats of nonsense.

Which government is this wanting repayment? Because it's not the sort of thing where China can just call in its loans, like a lot of people think.

[Nord Amour]

Maybe not, but it becomes a problem when said government wants repayment for its incredible feats of nonsense.

Which government is this wanting repayment? Because it's not the sort of thing where China can just call in its loans, like a lot of people think.

The Chinese have nothing to do with it. I'm afraid of the quite plausible relationship between overspending and taxation.

[Skeckoa]

A government budget is in no way similar to a household budget. The US Government has a limitless ability to borrow money as it has the US Dollar, and we've pretty much been borrowing money forever. We have had a balanced budget or surplus only three times since JFK was president, I believe.

Welp, that's sure as hell sustainable...

[Margno]

Cause it's a decent strategy, cause governments don't have to pay off their debts, cause they don't retire. They can absolutely just keep paying the interest forever.
These are top professional econonists from the richest nation in the world. They didn't just forget how loans work.

[Atlanticatia]

A government budget is in no way similar to a household budget. The US Government has a limitless ability to borrow money as it has the US Dollar, and we've pretty much been borrowing money forever. We have had a balanced budget or surplus only three times since JFK was president, I believe.

Welp, that's sure as hell sustainable...

Well, it's the debt to GDP ratio that matters. Small deficits with decent GDP growth rates are relatively insignificant and sustainable. However, if we were deficit spending huge amounts every year it would be unsustainable. (i.e. 3+% of GDP)

[Lalaki]

Government debt actually plays an important part in the way our financial system is structured. Yes, we need to keep it under control (below a certain amount of GDP), but deficit hawking isn't really necessary.