A comment from DenisS over at Skeptics speaks to your last point. "Calling congressional spending "borrowing" against future generations is a matter of opinion and also tends to be colored by what side of a bill someone is on. For instance, I'm sure that Rep. Rice didn't have anything to say about "borrowing" when he voted in favor of the TCJA in 2017, a bill that ended up adding several hundred billion dollars to the deficit."

The money has to be repaid, but the debt doesn't have to be reduced. The state can easily pay the debt with new debt.

@Martin ".., in 1933, Arkansas defaulted on its debt. More recently, Detroit, filed for bankruptcy in 2013." And at onetime, Mitch McConnell suggested States should be allowed "to plug budget holes punched into the economy by the coronavirus pandemic", as opposite to wait handout from the Fed borrowing.

Re borrowing an average of $X per person, this really misses the point that a great many people have no need to borrow anything, while some people - the ones most adversely affected by COVID - probably need more. If you could work from home, and didn't get sick, you've probably saved money by not commuting, not dining out or going to bars, not taking cruises or expensive foreign vacations...

It isn't necessarily true that the debt ever needs to be paid back. For instance some of the UK 1914 war bonds were undated gilts (repayable only as the government chose, which they did not take up for 100 years) - theguardian.com/business/2014/oct/31/… - and and it looks like the US Liberty Bonds were also redeemable only at the government's option - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_bond ; See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilt-edged_securities#Undated_gilts ; still used in US: investopedia.com/terms/u/undated-issue.asp

@r13 The federal state can (in theory) "print" as much money as it wants.

@Martin Which country CANNOT print money endlessly, if there are others to take it. Rome was the center of universe at onetime too, where is it now?

@MartinSchröder / r13 but there is a difference between printing 'cash' , and actual 'money in the bank'. The former isn't really directly relevant to this question - it's like a Company issuing more shares - it dilutes what already exists.

Huge assumption here that government spending actually expands the economy more than the taxes strangle it. This is not in evidence, indeed is denied by evidence in most cases. In nearly every case this is false.

@puppetsock [citation needed]

"The way that taxes work means that those with more money (in the future) will shoulder a higher proportion of the costs" Whether or not this happens is actually debatable.

And this is the crux of the situation: "an average of $5500 per person" isn't real. It depends heavily on who is taxed. Republicans tend to want to tax lower paid individuals and Democrats want to tax the rich and corporations. Increasing taxes on the high earners drive that "$5500" down for the poor and taxing the poor drive that number up for them. And the poor are far less able to pay that money than the rich.

The money will not be repaid through taxes, it will be repaid through new loans. Rolling over its debt is what it means for the US to avoid default.

The rich never pay their taxes as they can pay consultants whose job is to funnel the money in the right places to pay the least amount of tax. It is the middle class which pays the taxes, and as the middle class gets thinner higher debt gets more and more of a problem.

@Shautieh: Despite all the tax breaks that high-income earners get, numerous statistics say you're wrong. In 2018 in the USA the top 1% paid over 40% of all income tax collected, the top 10% paid 70%. Note that this is income tax only, if you including all other taxes the total tax burden is borne much less progressively.

@r13 Countries didn’t ‘print money’ in Roman days, they had some tricks to increase the supply to a degree but it was ultimately limited by the supply of certain metals.

James, who are you kidding here? The poor won't pay it back, they don't pay taxes. The rich won't pay it back, they pay people to take care of things like taxes. It's people like me, the middle class who will pay it. And before someone says the rich pay more, I point you to the fact that I paid more actual income tax than Trump did in 2017.

Republicans suggest old people would be willing to die to save the economy for their kids, then don't think those same people are willing to pay $5500 for the same reason.

@suchiuomizu I think you misunderstood my response. It implies a country's ability to borrow is not unlimited. It depends on the strength of the borrowing country. Once the strength deteriorates, the consequence follows. The comparison with Rome implies no empire, and political or military mighty, can stay strong forever. Thus...

The money will be paid through a hidden tax called inflation