Meanwhile, African Dogs are not members of the genus Canis, like wolves and domesticated dogs, but a sibling genus Lycaon. Both African Dogs and other dogs are members of the Canidae family.

What an odd response. If you are somehow trying to call me an African Dog, then I accept your gracious compliment.

Correct. Or rather, that it's not relevant to the discussion at hand. The federal reserve rate has nothing to do with the national debt.

It absolutely does impact the national debt. The FFR is the range on inter-bank lending which the FED themselves state attempts to influence other interest rates. Also, the FFR is really just a target range; they still have to adjust interest on reserve balances to bring the actual rates down and you'll see they've done this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IORB

When a bank gets less return on excess reserves, it will want to make more loans. For regulatory reasons they have to hold some treasury bonds as collateral which again puts upward pressure on treasury prices. Rising bond prices pushes down treasury bond yields. Low yields on treasury bonds makes it easier for the government to borrow and rack up even more debt.

Generally, more liquidity to bid up assets, including treasury bonds (which are still attractive while yields are relatively high), will push down yields everywhere.

A major portion Federal Government debt is interest charges; the government pays for borrowing money.

Interest rates affect the amount of interest owed. After decades of low interest, the past five years of interest rate hikes have dramatically increased government debt.

Lower rates won't lower the amount already owed, but would help slow the rate of increase of the debt burden moving forward.

Lower rate also encourages more borrowing. So it's not clear how the rate will affect the debt. I'd say it's not the deciding factor.

It's possible for this to be a real problem and for Republicans to simultaneously be full of shit.

The increasing debt represents a wealth transfer to asset holders. If you can exchange your dollars for things like houses, before those dollars are devalued, then you win. This is regressive.

This is not an argument for fewer social programs. It is an argument for more taxes.

Spending more in order to force taxes up later isn’t good policy.

We need to cut spending to match taxes, then start deciding what’s important and what people want to pay for with increased taxes

Giving people everything for “free” to win the next election is very bad policy for the country

I am not sure why so many take it as a partisan observation. There was a time when a total debt of $1 trillion was controversial in politics and economics.

Lowering the rate also determines how much it costs to sustain the debt spending. So my comment was related in an economic sense.

I also prefer to have sustainable Government institutions and social programs which increasing debt will eventually threaten.

Maybe the system can sustain $50 trillion with $2 trillion added every month. We will find out eventually with the current path.

It already costs more to service existing debt than even defense spending.

The debt is still a massive problem

The fed rate is also the rate that the national debt interest is paid on

Will this encourage further and increased debt spending ?

When will spending get cut to stop the bleeding?

America has a spending problem.