I brought up the example of Canada numerous times back when our federal debt was getting a little out of control ( 1980s I believe ). We raised personal tax rates for 10-15 years, switched to a surplus very late 1990s, and until Covid never ran a huge deficit since. I foresee this as a likely outcome for Americans; not just because of the federal debt but the social benefits programs are unsustainable and the medical system needs federal money or too many people will go bankrupt when they get sick. An aging population won't help. Canada will have to pay for Covid but it's not nearly as big a deal as the US because we started 2020 in a far better financial situation. The whole "printing money" themes some people post on here are for the most part stupid. I don't pretend to know everything about fiscal policy but I do know what Canada did.
That's just hyperbole. Doesn't matter what FDR or anybody else says, bankruptcy is an legal action, not slogans or political rhetoric. "The United States government has never defaulted on its obligations to pay its debt. It has never, ever missed a payment." https://www.cnbc.com/id/43140915#:~:text=The United States government has never defaulted on,has paid when it said it would pay. If the U.S. wanted to not pay other fiscal stuff (Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps and much more), none of that is actually contractual. Congress could legally stop all these programs and that does not signify bankruptcy. Also, raging inflation is not illegal, just a bad practice. So that is the path of least resistance for our political leaders.
It might be worthwhile considering this. The U.S. Central Bank could retire what is incorrectly referred to as the "National Debt" using computer keystrokes. The result would be bank reserve accounts swollen by the amount of debt retired. When, in a similar fashion, Japan "retired" ~ 50% of its "debt"*, Japanese households did not run out to buy everything in sight because they feared uncontrolled inflation. When either the U.S. or Japan's Central bank buys up their own Treasury's bonds there is no change in private sector wealth, but there is a drop in future private sector income. This, in the view of some economists , should have a tempering affect on inflation. Sovereign bonds are both a tool used by Central Banks in achieving their monetary policy goals, and an interest paying store of money, but they do not represent real debt in the traditional sense, not anyway in the case of the U.S. or Japan. Instead, they represent a commitment to future productivity gains. In any case, bonds are important to the functioning of our economy. Even though they serve as a tool of the Central bank, they also serve as an interest paying store of money. Will the government, in effect, pay back it's "debt" with "useless" dollars? That depends on the intelligence and insight of those we elect to represent us in government, and their ability to articulate to us the intricacies of government finances, so we will elect wisely. Paul Ryan, who did not understand government finances and believed that our Social Security System could run out of money, and who was therefore an advocate of privatizing Social Security as a means, he apparently thought, of saving it from ruin, asked Alan Greenspan, who did understand government finances, whether the dollars to pay off future claims against Social Security would be there when they were needed? Greenspan responded that the real question was whether the necessary resources would be there when needed. Greenspan was being opaque in his typical mumbo jumbo fashion. But at the same time he was giving Ryan an answer elegant in its simplicity, deep in its insight, and of the greatest fundamental correctness imaginable. ______________________ *I doubt this affected estimates of Japan's sovereign "debt", because those estimates may not recognize the JGBs on the Central Bank's balance sheet as having disappeared and having been net replaced by new "printed" money in the private sector. The only way one can understand what really happens is by considering the consolidated Treasury-Central- Banks' books. It is true that the original Act creating the Fed in 1913 referred to the Regional Banks as "private". Two hundred amendments latter, however, any appearance of the Fed and its regional banks as "private" is an illusion. Although the outward appearance of the Fed is that of an independent agency, and indeed, to some considerable extent it is. Nevertheless the Fed and Treasury are linked in fundamental ways that can only be appreciated by considering the consolidated books of these two governmental bodies.
Greenspan once answered a question (paraphrased): "If you think you understand what I just said, you obviously misunderstood me". The FED used to be ground zero for obfuscation, and they were proud of that. They still are just as good at it, but they deny it. Same stuff, different day.
I think to a considerable degree Bernanke was a breath of fresh air when it came to mumbo jumbo reduction. The problem Central Bankers face is that sovereign finances are complicated by the necessary "three-way" among the Treasury, the Private Sector, and the Federal Reserve. And too, because of the great difference between Federal and personal, intra-private-sector and State finances. The government has a "money machine" in "it's basement" whose handle can be rotated both clockwise and counterclockwise; We don't. The average citizen is ill equipped to understand the full-implication of this. They understand the clockwise rotation of the handle to some extent, but the effects of counterclockwise rotation remains clouded in their minds. Naturally, the result is as it is, with people steadfastly believing in what is in reality nonsense.