The National Debt - An introduction to the national debt and its significance

Debt Clock and Obsession - Discussion of the debt clock and the obsession with the national debt

Debt and Poetry - Exploring the national debt and a poem about it

Debt and Infrastructure Plans - The impact of coronavirus stimulus bills and infrastructure plans on the national debt

Debt and Deficits - Understanding the difference between debt and deficits

Debt and Future Generations - The portrayal of debt as a burden on future generations

Debt and Spending Comparison - Comparing debt to credit card spending and debunking misconceptions

Debt and Investment - The concept of debt as a good investment for the country

Debt and Business Practices - Examining the idea of running government like a business and the history of debt debate

Debt and Reagan's Administration - Reagan's stance on deficits and the increase in national debt during his presidency

Debt and Bush Senior and Clinton - Efforts to reduce the debt during Bush Senior and Clinton's presidencies

Debt and Bush Junior - The increase in national debt during Bush Junior's presidency

Debt and Obama - Opposition to additional spending during Obama's presidency and its impact on the debt

Debt and Trump - Trump's tax cuts and their effect on the national debt

Debt and Interest Rates - The relationship between debt, interest rates, and inflation

Debt and Economic Growth - Debating the value of debt and its impact on economic growth

Debt and Future Generations' Perspective - A message from future generations about debt and investing in the future

- The national debt is a major concern in the US, with a debt clock in New York tracking its increase in real-time.
- The debt has surpassed $28 trillion and continues to grow due to stimulus bills and infrastructure plans.
- Republicans are particularly outraged by the increasing debt, warning of a future debt crisis.
- There is a difference between the debt and the deficit, with the deficit being the yearly amount spent in excess of government income, and the debt being the total accumulated over time.
- Political ads often portray the debt as burdening future generations, but this is misleading as most of the debt is owned by American investors.
- The debt is largely a result of long-term commitments to programs like Medicare, and not just new spending.
- Taking on debt can be a good investment for the country if it is spent on the right things, such as infrastructure.
- The argument that Republicans are the responsible ones when it comes to reducing the debt does not match up with historical reality.
- Ronald Reagan, for example, promised to balance the budget but ended up increasing defense spending and tripling the national debt.
- Obama faced opposition from Republicans for his stimulus bill and additional spending, despite inheriting a recession.

- Republicans opposed additional spending after the financial crisis, expressing concerns about deficits and debt.
- Trump implemented a large tax cut resulting in increased deficits, benefiting corporations and the top 5% of income earners.
- The national debt surpassed GDP due to increased borrowing from COVID stimulus, but the predicted disaster scenarios did not occur.
- Economists cannot explain why interest rates have declined despite rising debt.
- There is no set tipping point for a debt crisis, and economists are reevaluating their views on debt.
- The value of what we get in return for debt should be considered, and smart financial decisions can justify going into debt.
- Experts are more concerned about spending too little during the current crisis, and deficits should be reduced through taxing the wealthy.

- The debate should focus on whether the investments made with debt are worth it
- Future generations are not as concerned about being born into debt as they are about a country that didn't invest in their future
- Debt can be a tool for growth and is not always a bad thing
- Spending on things like preparing for climate change is worth it
- Future generations urge adults to "grow the fuck up" when it comes to the debt.

The US national debt has surpassed $28 trillion and continues to grow, causing concern among Republicans who warn of a future debt crisis. However, the debt is largely owned by American investors, and much of it is due to long-term commitments to programs like Medicare. Taking on debt can be a good investment if it is spent on the right things, such as infrastructure. There is no set tipping point for a debt crisis, and economists are reevaluating their views on debt. Experts suggest reducing deficits by taxing the wealthy, and future generations prioritize investments in their future over being born into debt. Debt can be a tool for growth and spending on things like climate change preparation is worthwhile.

The national debt has long been portrayed as a burden we’re placing on future generations. John Oliver discusses how national debt works, why people are so concerned about it, and why it might be more helpful that you think. 

Connect with Last Week Tonight online... 

Subscribe to the Last Week Tonight YouTube channel for more almost news as it almost happens: www.youtube.com/lastweektonight 

Find Last Week Tonight on Facebook like your mom would: www.facebook.com/lastweektonight 

Follow us on Twitter for news about jokes and jokes about news: www.twitter.com/lastweektonight 

Visit our official site for all that other stuff at once: www.hbo.com/lastweektonight

Our main story tonight concerns the national debt.

And I know just saying $28 trillion might sound confusing.

Well, to put it 1 way, it's 28 trillion dollars.

To put it another way, it's 28 million millions.

To put it a third way, it's an absolute fuckton of money.

But regardless, the national debt is a complete obsession in this country.

Here in New York, we even have a debt clock that counts up in real time.

It actually made headlines a little over a decade ago when the debt hit 14 digits.

The national debt just passed 10000000000000 dollars.

So the clock's caretakers had to squeeze a 1 and the dollar sign into the same square.

The clock was put up in 1989 by Helena Durst's grandfather, when the national debt was just under 3000000000000 dollars.

Now that the debt has passed the 10000000000000 dollar mark, Durst likes to recite a poem by her grandfather.

Enjoy today and tomorrow, for tomorrow's going to be terrible.

The rhyme scheme's all over the place, and if tomorrow is gonna be terrible, why would you enjoy it?

That was clearly the work of a man almost as good at writing poetry as he was at raising children who aren't serial killers.

Oh, yeah, the clock was put up by that Durst family, the bathroom murder burp Dursts.

So, thanks very much for the dumb clock that doesn't tell time, you wealthy bathroom murder burpers.

But the truth is, our national debt is undeniably big.

And between the trillions in coronavirus stimulus bills and the infrastructure plans Biden unveiled just this week, it's poised to get even bigger.

And Republicans in particular seem outraged by that.

This chart showing debt is not just about the big number.

It's not just about the 30 trillion dollars of debt.

Countries that bankrupt themselves and destroy their economies simply aren't around very long.

There will be a day of reckoning, a debt crisis, and it won't be pretty.

How long do you think your family would last if every month you spent more and more on the credit card and made the minimum payment?

Look, I know that all sounds pretty scary, but for what it's worth, the national debt is nothing like a credit card.

For a start, We don't have 28 trillion airline miles, nor do we get letters in the mail every day saying we're pre-approved for a brand-new national debt.

But if we have huge clocks to measure it, we're considering an infrastructure bill that can add 2000000000000 to it, and some are implying that our creditors could be turning up any day now with a baseball bat to repossess our bridges and dams because of it, we thought tonight might be a good time to talk about the national debt.

How it works, how valid concerns about it are, and how we should think about it moving forward.

And let's start with the basics, like the difference between the debt and a deficit.

A country runs a deficit when it spends more money on things like the military, social programs, and everything else the government does, than it brings in mostly through taxes.

Now, to pay for a deficit, the government then borrows money, thus accruing debt.

So the deficit is a yearly measurement of how much we're in the red, and the debt is the total amount that we owe accumulated over time.

And For decades, in political ads, the debt has been portrayed as a burden that we're placing on future generations.

Basically making that argument that we are running up their credit card, and that 1 day, the bill's gonna come due.

You owe the United States government, in round numbers, $50,000.

I would like you to fix the debt, so I can have a future.

I pledge allegiance to America's debt and to the Chinese government that lends us money.

Congress must stop digging a deep hole of debt that we'll never get out of.

Crying babies, exasperated Santas, and even a child watching Uncle Sam digging a grave.

If you do see a man in any kind of costume digging a large hole in the middle of the desert, do not approach him.

I'm saying you're not the 1 who should try to stop him.

If he's willing to dig a big hole, he's willing to dig a small 1.

But ads like those are wildly misleading.

For instance, that Pledge of Allegiance ad talked about how much we owe the Chinese government.

But for the record, the majority of government debt is actually owned by American investors.

For example, if you have a pension, you might own some of that debt in the form of government bonds because they're a pretty safe investment.

Foreign investors only own around a third of our debt.

And while, yes, it is true, China does own over a trillion dollars of it, which isn't nothing, it's around 5 percent for what it's worth, they're not even our largest foreign creditor, Japan is.

And while the debt is often talked about as being something that we're running up with new spending, the truth is, before the pandemic hit, most of our debt was the result of long, steady growth in programs that we'd long ago committed to, like Medicare and other entitlements.

So we are very much getting stuff for the money that we're spending.

And that actually brings us to a really important point here.

Going into debt can actually be a good investment for the country.

Essentially, as economists will tell you, the key question is, are you spending money on the right things?

We need to think of the debt, are you creating money for real economic activity?

If you're doing it just to give somebody money, then yeah, you got a problem.

But if I'm a private individual, and I go to the bank and say, I got this wonderful new idea, I just need the money to build my factory.

Nobody says, oh, that's horrible, you just increased the money supply.

Because we all go, yeah, but there's a factory there, It's a real thing.

Taking on debt to build a factory that creates jobs and increases economic output is probably a smart investment.

Especially if it's 1 that makes this actual pillowcase depicting a nude Nicolas Cage lounging in a banana peel with 2 giant foxes in the background.

And I am more than happy to co-sign on both of those claims, and the reason that I am confident is...

You can consider me a satisfied customer.

The point is, Republicans love to argue that government should be run like a business, but tend to conveniently forget that some extremely valuable companies got that way in part because they had long periods where they spent a shitload more than they took in.

So, as you can see, already, things are a lot more nuanced than simply, hey, Uncle Sam, please stop digging.

And it is worth taking a moment to look at the history of the debate over the national debt, because the argument the Republicans often make is that they are the responsible ones who want to reduce the debt and rein in spending, whereas Democrats don't give a shit about it and just love recklessly throwing around money.

But that story just doesn't match up to reality.

He spent years complaining that deficits were a sign that the federal government had simply lost its way.

I think the answer to curing inflation is a balanced budget.

Well, balancing the budget is like protecting...

You don't spend more than you take in, right?

Is there anything weirder than calling someone's virginity their virtue?

Because as far as virtues go, it is a pretty shitty 1.

I'm not saying that there is something inherently wrong with not having sex, that is a personal choice.

I have frequently not had sex due to lots of people's personal choices, but if that is the best thing about you, you should probably get some other virtues.

But the key thing to know is that Reagan didn't, in fact, end up spending his presidency saying no, because He wasn't really promising not to spend money so much as promising not to spend it on certain people.

His campaign rhetoric about welfare queens played into the racist trope that Black people were fraudulently benefiting from wasteful government spending.

And As president, he followed through by making cuts to basic elements of the social safety net, like food stamps, welfare, and Medicaid.

But he also massively increased defense spending while cutting taxes, so that the government took in less money, creating large deficits that wound up tripling the national debt.

Which I guess in his terms, made Reagan America's hottest little slut.

And between Bush Senior and Clinton, they more or less did what Reagan had promised to do, cutting spending and raising taxes enough to achieve budget surpluses by the end of the 90s.

And the debt was briefly starting to come down until this lovable little human rights violation entered the picture.

Because he immediately signed a massive tax cut and launched an expensive war on terror, and then signed a second round of tax cuts, all of which made our national debt explode.

But Republicans, strangely, didn't seem to give a shit Until, that is, Obama became president.

He inherited a historic recession and immediately signed a large stimulus bill.

But, afterwards, was met with fervent opposition to any additional spending, mainly from Republicans, who would suddenly re-found their hatred for deficits.

And sometimes they expressed it in truly remarkable ways.

Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children and borrowing from China.

But it's gonna be like slavery when that note is due, right?

We are gonna be beholden to a foreign master.

The debt isn't gonna just suddenly come due all at once, and being in debt to someone is not the same as being enslaved by them.

Treasury bonds being owned by foreign investors is anything like slavery, you know both a very small amount about the financial system and a very racist amount about slavery.

Also, just generally, even if you preface something that isn't racist with, this isn't racist, it will still sound racist.

If you said, a lot of people buy jeans at Old Navy.

Totally fine, but if you said, a lot of people, and this isn't racist, yeah, try it, try it anyway, this isn't racist, but a lot of people buy jeans at Old Navy.

Now, that suddenly sounds like something that's gonna require about 3 pages of your notes app.

And the thing is, Republicans putting the brakes on Obama's recovery spending is now widely considered to have been a big mistake.

Most experts agree that the federal government didn't spend as much on stimulus as it should have following the financial crisis, forcing state and local governments into austerity that delayed the economic recovery by about 4 years.

He campaigned on eliminating the entire national debt, only to then implement an absolutely massive tax cut, resulting in huge deficits.

Most corporations who benefited used the money not on investments in things like factories, but on stock buybacks.

As for individuals, nearly half the tax cuts went to the top 5 percent of income earners.

So we gave more money to people who already had a lot of it.

And despite claiming that Trump's tax cuts would pay for themselves, they very much did not.

In fact, they did so little to boost the economy, they're projected to cost us 1.9 trillion over a ten-year period.

All of which clearly left some fiscally responsible Republicans who voted for those tax cuts in a pretty awkward position.

You belong to a party that has greenlit a historic expansion of deficits and debt.

Do I wish that it was a higher priority for the president to rein in spending in the debt, yes.

Do you think your colleagues, the Republican Party, will rediscover its concern about debt and deficits?

I mean, isn't that the most cynical, phony

You're touching into something that, as you know, I have raged against.

I do not like him as Santa's elf, that man Ted Cruz, can fuck himself.

That is a pretty flagrant admission of a double standard there.

Honestly, the only clear example may have been when Mick Mulvaney, Trump's former chief of staff, said, the worst thing in the whole world is deficits when Barack Obama was the president, then Donald Trump became president, and we're a lot less interested as a party.

And that is just flat out admitting the whole game.

But even if you put all of that bad faith hypocrisy aside, we are still left with the key question, how much debt is too much?

And the interesting answer to that is, nobody really knows.

For many years, we thought that the best way to measure debt was to compare it to the gross domestic product.

Basically, measuring how much in total the country owes versus how much it produces each year.

And the economic consensus was that debt exceeding GDP or even getting close to it was a hard red line that could not be crossed without risking a financial crisis.

It was something occasionally expressed in fairly over-the-top ways, like in this John Stossel clip from 2011.

You know we're already 14 and a half trillion dollars in debt.

Look around, America's doing pretty well.

These violent protests broke out once Greece was so deep in debt that Greece had trouble borrowing more money.

Greece spent so much that by last year, they owed more money than their entire economy produced.

We won't reach that level of debt until, well, oops, pretty soon.

We're on a clear track to a Greek-type crisis.

Cutting to footage of a riot can make anything seem more dire than might actually be the case.

Regé-Jean Page is apparently not appearing on the second season of Bridgerton.

But the truth is much more complex, because A, his character arc is mostly wrapped up and the Duke doesn't appear in the rest of the novels.

It's really a generational story of a whole family.

It's actually perfectly in his character to start something he doesn't finish.

But it's much more complex when it comes to our economy, too, because something fascinating happened around last June.

Lastly, because of increased borrowing resulting from the first round of COVID stimulus, our national debt actually surpassed the size of our GDP.

But all those disaster scenarios that John Stossel's performatively exaggerated voice fluctuations warned us about, none of them happened.

It didn't suddenly cost us a lot more to borrow money due to higher interest rates.

We didn't, as you may have noticed, become Greece.

In fact, despite adding 4000000000000 to the debt last year, Interest payments on that debt actually declined.

As our debt has risen in recent years, interest rates have fallen to historic lows.

I am not an economist, nor do I know much about math, which I know might sound surprising to you, given that I do have the face of someone who has a favorite kind of graphing calculator.

What is shocking, though, is that even expert economists can't really explain it either.

Here is the former chief of the IMF, basically admitting as much.

To be perfectly frank, we do not, at least I do not, I don't want to talk for the profession, we've had this steady decrease in the interest rates since the mid-'80s.

Continuing a bit more in the crisis, but, you know, continuing now.

Now, he went on to point out that there are any number of possibilities.

It may have something to do with aging populations in advanced economies, China's high savings rate, the general lack of capital-intensive investment opportunities, or merely the fact that Richard Campbell of Omaha, Nebraska hasn't stepped on a crack in the sidewalk in over 30 years.

But the point is, economists really have no fucking idea.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has now said that the debt-to-GDP ratio has no set tipping point where a financial crisis is imminent.

So, taken together, all of this has made many economists start changing the way that they think about debt.

Thinking that very basically, so long as our economy grows at a rate greater than the interest that we're paying on our debt, we can come out ahead.

In kind of the same way that you would come out ahead if you borrowed money at 2 percent interest and then invested it somewhere and got 5 percent returns.

But the larger point is, this whole field is in a bit of flux right now.

Some economists believe that we should not get too complacent that a debt crisis is still on the horizon, just not at the tipping point that we previously thought.

Another more radical argument is that the government can in fact create all the money it needs to pay for stuff as long as it doesn't generate inflation.

The point is, there is a good faith debate to be had over how to handle our national debt over the long term.

But right now, most economists actually agree that with interest rates at historic lows, the question shouldn't really be, how much debt are we taking on, as much as what is the value of what we are getting for it in return.

And there are certainly dumb fiscal decisions that we could make, like tax cuts for the rich.

We've tried that multiple times now, and if they were the magic key to eliminating our debt long-term, we probably would have seen signs of it working by now.

But there are smart financial decisions that more than justify going into debt, like spending on social programs, infrastructure, or on an individual level, this Nicholas Cage pillow.

It's the second best investment I've ever made, after, of course, buying another Nicholas Cage pillow.

I was worried that my wife would get jealous, so this 1 is to replace my wife.

And amidst the current crisis that we're in, many experts are less concerned about us spending too much than spending too little.

And if it turns out that inflation or interest rates do start to rise, we should absolutely start cutting deficits, although not by cutting government programs that people need, but through taxing people who can afford it.

Look, no 1 credible is saying that deficits don't matter, or that we should borrow as if the sky is the limit.

What they are saying is, the debate shouldn't be about whether debt is good or bad, it should be about whether the investments that we are making are worth it or not.

And if you are still worried about debt because you've been told that you are burdening your children and children's children's future, well, I actually have some good news for you because those future generations have a special message just for you.

You idiots clearly have no idea how it even works.

Yes, going into debt to give money back to people who already have too much of it is stupid.

But you can also use debt to build new roads and bridges.

You can use it to improve schools, which would make us into a more skilled labor force.

You can use it to improve health care, so we can be healthier and more productive.

You can even use it to buy these pillows, which will become treasured family heirlooms.

The important thing about debt is what you get out of it.

In fact, the debt-to-GDP ratio isn't as reliable a metric as previously assumed.

The debt-averse doctrine of the 1970s turned out to be largely flawed, given the continuing inverse relationship between rising debt and low interest rates.

So it follows that the economy's capacity to accrue debt without suffering massive adverse consequences is larger than economists, as Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff once theorized.

I'm 9 years old, and even I understand that.

And if you're so concerned about our future, maybe it's worth spending now on things like preparing for

We're not as scared of being born into debt...

As we are of being born into a country that didn't invest in our future.

See all LastWeekTonight transcripts on Youtube

The National Debt: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)