Re March 24 letter by Aaron T. Euglad, “Federal debt, an investment in future”
In Mr. Euglad’s article he reasoned the U.S. debt is 73.6 percent of gross domestic product, which he said “in household terms is equal to a family earning $100,000 per year with a debt of $73,600.” The problem with his logic is the government doesn’t earn an amount equal to the GDP. The government earned $2.5 trillion in income last year and has a debt of $16.5 trillion. In household terms that equals a family earning $100,000 a year with a debt of $660,000.
To put it into perspective, if a family earns $100,000 per year, is currently $660,000 in debt and continues to spend $152,000 per year, how do you think it will work out for this family in the future?
I have no problem with the government running up more debt and think they should continue to do so as long as people are willing to give them their money. I just don’t want to hear anyone complain if the government reaches a point where they must default on repaying the dept. If you lend your money to someone deep in debt who continues to spend twice what they earn, don’t start crying if you don’t get paid back and don’t claim ignorance that you didn’t know your retirement or savings was invested in U.S. debt.
This isn’t rocket science; if you continue spending twice what you make, it can only end one way. Eventually the overspending will come in line one way or another … you really don’t need to worry about it.
The writer lives in Myrtle Beach.