A situation where The U.S.A has no national debt.

[X-ray]

Yes, debt increase because bad spending, but it doesn't necessarily means there will be no national debt if bad spending is eliminated, the government would still issue bond and any money saved from bad spending will be spent on infrastructure and funding other essentials which is going to be far better I guess but the debt actually serves purpose.

The best outcome in this scenario would be, the debt still exist but below 80% debt to GDP ratio, 401k and other money markets still have bonds to buy because they needed it, and the country's cashflow become healthy.

The government with the surplus will fund better things like universal healthcare, space exploration, cutting edge infrastructure and so on.

[drangos]

It's the difference between the structural deficit and government waste. I think the US would not reduce its national debt to nearly zero in the event it eradicated a substantial amount of fraud. Waste and unnecessary spending. The government can still run a deficit. Even if its spending is greater than the taxes it collects. Which includes spending on programs that many citizens view as essential. I think it is worth noting that I think I'm really interested in the opportunity cost. When expenditures are cut, should the money be used to pay back debt. Cut taxes or invest in infrastructure and productivity? There's a point where it's possible to take on loans and still be OK. But it's another issue when you're constantly taking on loans, and you're not managing the underlying deficit.

[Uhwuchukwu53]

What we've witnessed recently in the American economy is that tax players are becoming increasingly unwilling to make their statutory contributions in form of taxes to the the American government.

It is not a case of Americans unwilling to pay taxes, it is more about government expenditure well surpassing revenue that the government generates through taxes. This forces them to borrow, in order to cover the deficit.

America would have no national debt if not for waste, fraud and abuse.

That is not completely true, a lot of these funds also go into essential projects. Mind you that the United States provide huge financial support for a lot of vital global organization, such as W.H.O, U.N., UNICEF, etc. So it is not only about funding wars, they also provide strong support for essential organizations.

Yes 'coyster ' I agree with you, following the happening in my area of domain, government of today is many nations lack the real blue print of what the taxe paid by it's citizens is used for, most citizens is already tired and felt paying this taxe is waste, for instance in most of the developing nations called the third world countries, it's government collects taxes but hardly provide basic amenities,like good roads, hospitals, electric and good water, but citizens keep on paying taxes, that doesn't end there ,all their internal generating  revenue including the foreign loan can't build the satisfaction of citizens demand for better living, all this character by government killed the interest of citizens in complying to their call for taxes.

[fruktik]

If the government were to function properly, the national debt would be minimal or nonexistent. Naturally, hidden expenditures are eroding a significant portion of the federal budget. The authorities need to be asked the appropriate questions about this. This isn't state money, but taxpayer funds, for which they must be held accountable. There's no other way.

Society should protest if it sees the ruling elites overstepping their bounds. If the people remain silent, officials will become brazen and shamelessly steal from the treasury.

[barbara44]

If the government were to function properly, the national debt would be minimal or nonexistent. Naturally, hidden expenditures are eroding a significant portion of the federal budget. The authorities need to be asked the appropriate questions about this. This isn't state money, but taxpayer funds, for which they must be held accountable. There's no other way.

Society should protest if it sees the ruling elites overstepping their bounds. If the people remain silent, officials will become brazen and shamelessly steal from the treasury.

To be fair, the war has always been between the elite and the regular people, just a thousand or so people, versus entire nations. However, what people do not understand is that we are not designed in a way to go against our leaders. This is why whenever there is a rebel group that does a coup and topples a whole government, there is a leader in that rebel group as well; you never see everyone equal anywhere. In the end, people always look for a leader, for someone better than them.

Because they know, for a fact, they are not really deserving of that power, and they know how bad they are, and they want someone much better than them to rule them. So even if you hate your own country's government, and even if you want a rebel war that takes out the government, you want someone who is not just a spokesperson; you want a leader.

The same logic applies to elites: regular people will defend Elon Musk's right to have a trillion-dollar net worth because they do not think that they deserve more; they think he deserves more; they see someone working and doing something brand new, and they want that person to be rewarded, and themselves having trouble paying their medical bills in the same country.

If I say "there should be no trillionaires in the world when people are having trouble paying their hospital bills", I am labelled as a communist. When in fact, I am not a communist at all; I am just against extremism, and that includes extreme levels of capitalism as well. Sure, we should have capitalism; it is unfortunately the best we have, but not at THAT level. That is too much. I am okay with Elon having a trillion dollars, as long as the nation doesn't have people going bankrupt because they have cancer. Is that too much to ask?

And I will never understand why "we should not die because we can't afford medicine" in the largest country in the world is a problem; we should all agree to it, and yet people will defend the elite and not defend themselves.

[Alex077]

What we've witnessed recently in the American economy is that tax players are becoming increasingly unwilling to make their statutory contributions in form of taxes to the the American government.

I agree with this part of the statement. When people see their hard-earned money being wasted on political game or corruption in distant countries instead of being spent on their local education, health or infrastructure then they become mentally reluctant to pay taxes. However in the case of  United States most taxpayers continue to pay taxes due to legal obligation and the strict system of IRS. You know, the laws of the United States are very strict when it comes to taxes.

America would have no national debt if not for waste, fraud and abuse.

I disagree with this. If I am not mistaken US national debt is over $40 trillion. It has been increasing steadily since Iran war.

Waste or foreign aid is very small part of US budget. Afaik, it should not be more than 1-2% of the budget. Main debt is created from the huge budget deficit caused by defense spending and tax cuts. US spends the most on defense compared to any other country in the world.

Even if waste or controversial foreign aid were to be stopped 100%, US national debt would not be zero due to those huge social security & defense spending and interest cost.

[fruktik]

If I say "there should be no trillionaires in the world when people are having trouble paying their hospital bills", I am labelled as a communist. When in fact, I am not a communist at all; I am just against extremism, and that includes extreme levels of capitalism as well. Sure, we should have capitalism; it is unfortunately the best we have, but not at THAT level. That is too much. I am okay with Elon having a trillion dollars, as long as the nation doesn't have people going bankrupt because they have cancer. Is that too much to ask?

And I will never understand why "we should not die because we can't afford medicine" in the largest country in the world is a problem; we should all agree to it, and yet people will defend the elite and not defend themselves.

A very profound thought, but it doesn't at all reflect the situation you described.

Yes, I agree with some points. People always need a leader, but there are countries where the government is elected annually and consists of several people. There's no one specific leader.

Regarding Elon Musk, this man didn't make such a fortune out of thin air. He gave the world technological progress, so to speak. He created unique inventions that are known throughout the world and that many people buy. That's saying something.

Does he have the resources he's willing to donate?