Political Crossfire Forums

[Quicksurf]

Just some quick background info for you history dropouts, Hamilton did not want to decrease the national debt. In fact after the war, the United States owed approximatley 54 million to creditors, (42 million was owed to Americans).

Hamilton wanted to keep the 42 million dollars of debt and by doing so he basically "re-financed it" by selling more government securities to those who already owed money. On paper, it looked quite well to potential creditors, due to the fact that the United States Government wasn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Keep in mind that even if the United States had the ability to pay off the 42 million dollars, Hamilton wanted people to be invested in the new nation so that it was in their best interests that the Federal Government remained intact.

Personally, I agree with Jefferson, in that when governments don't use tax revenues they generally waste money (usually by expanding) and once that money is gone, it never comes back.

Despite my ideological feelings which are with Jefferson, I still think that Hamilton's plan did keep the nation stable for quite a long period of time, and insured it's success.

So my question is did the national debt (back then) not being paid off help or hurt our nation as a whole in the long run? And could the US Government have succeeded if the 42 million was paid off intially?

[Green]

Buy more than you can pay for temporarily, then the next year pay off the debt so that you are not left with too much money.

Brilliant

[Fido]

I would say that Jefferson was correct on this matter, that the load of debt would be put on the backs of working people and that it would invite wars of adventure paid again by the working people. It is said that the rich evade taxes, and the poor canot pay taxes so the middle (working) class pay taxes. The burden of taxes has been taken off those who most benefit from the country, those with wealth in property, and been put on labor. This means that those who must in time of war defend the nation with their lives must also give their lives in taxes for the defense of anothers property. It is not fair, but a result of war.
There is a line from Marx, Das Capital; in reference to the national debt in England. Marx was making the argument, if I remember correctly after many years, that much of the national debt was in fact turned into capital and advanced to capitalists. We have much the same thing happening today, where much publicly funded research, like much of our national property is handed over free to capitalists. The line from Marx was a quotation of another, to my memory, and said: In England all things of a public nature are designated the Queen's, and then there is the national debt...

Your question is rather like that of slavery. Was the survival of the country essential justification for an outright injustice. In the case of slavery the answer is that we needed to be able to fight ourselves and defend ourselves to right slavery.

The national debt, and deficit spending, like debasement of the currancy, and the theft of social security to hide the extent of the debt are all examples of the failure of government at democracy. Literally these thing exist because people do not have the democratic power to prevent them. We have accepted a democracy that limits our neighbors rights and does not protect our own. We pay a huge, and almost insurmountable price for denying freedom.