As recently as 2000, the U.S. had a budget surplus, meaning it received more than it was spending every year at that point many economists envisioned the national debt could be paid off by 2012.
Behind the scenes, a secret report commissioned for the government indicated possible detrimental consequences of retiring the National debt
Paying off the national debt would mean the death of Treasury bonds, at that time they were considered the epicenter of the global economy.
Treasury securities are crucially important to the world financial system in a number of ways: banks buy them as low-risk assets, the Fed uses them for executing monetary policy, and mortgage interest rates vary based on Treasury rates.
'It was a huge issue ... for not just the U.S. economy, but the global economy,' says Diane Lim Rogers, an economist in the Clinton administration.
Jason Seligman, an economist who wrote the report titled 'Life After Debt (PDF),' concluded it was a great idea to pay down the debt, but not to pay it off entirely.
'There's such a thing as too much debt,' says Seligman. 'But also such a thing, perhaps, as too little.'
Read More: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/2...ent-report
So the decision to go to war every time someone farted crossways was actually a carefully crafted plan to bolster the worlds economy contrived by a think tank.
How's that working out in retrospect?
If there is no more national debt, and Treasury bonds became a thing of the past, does that really mean there is nothing for people to invest in? I smell BS, the economy was booming back then.