National Debt Crisis Analysis

899 Words4 Pages
Republicans, insiders and outsiders alike, have made it clear they agree on one issue—the national debt crisis. Unlike issues that have traditionally been important to the Republican base, the national debt crisis is decidedly bipartisan; the endless stream of news stories about the dangers of government debt has ensured this. What propels this issue to the forefront is the divide between the proposed solutions of Republicans and Democrats. The not so fiscally conservative policies of Clinton stand in contrast to the expense cutting policies of Trump. The perception that Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, is a good businessman who can rein in the excesses of Washington, has given him a boost at every turn. Rather than attempt to discredit…show more content…
During World War Two, the US spent greatly on expanding its military to fight the war on multiple fronts. When the war ended, the US had accumulated vast debt; debt as a percentage of GDP was a whopping 120%. The world was in a state of rapid modernization, so rather than cut all the policies enacted to combat the effects of the Great Depression, the government increased spending. For more than a decade, it ran consecutive deficits, investing heavily in infrastructure and social policies. Over the 30 years following World War Two, despite only achieving surpluses twice, debt as a percentage of GDP fell from 120% to just 20%. This era would become known as the golden age of the American middle class.

During the 1980s, the political winds shifted. Ronald Reagan cut taxes, allowed more private campaign contributions, used republican control of the house and senate to deregulate, and inflated defense spending. He did later rescind some of these changes because he realized they were
…show more content…
Debt of corporations and private citizens

Mortgage regulations… There are a few I want to briefly discuss

Behavioural economics…

Monetary policy and the Federal Reserve…

Some say America is an oligarchy; a nation rigged, of the elite, by the elite, for the elite. It seems a tad pessimistic until you look at the data, then it seems harrowingly true.

Though infrequently admitted, advocates of free-trade have always known that even as the great majority benefit, some would be subject to consequences. In moving for repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, Sir Robert Peel acknowledged concerns about the harm it might do to agricultural labourers. “I wish it were possible to make any change in any great system of law without subjecting some persons to distress,” he said. Yet he also argued, correctly, that no one suffered more from tariffs on corn than the poorest farm workers.

What exactly is hegemony? Does it describe the role of a primus inter pares—a nation that leads but does not rule? Or is it just a euphemism for ‘empire,’ a word that has fallen out of favour? And does a hegemon act in its own self-interest, or does it act altruistically to bring about peace and
Open Document