Isn't it also the case that corporations never pay off their debt?  Corporations borrow every day.  They are always indebted, and they need to borrow just to stay operational.  And as they grow, their debt load grows too.  I think most economists would say that is a good thing.  That's how capitalism is supposed to work, and that's why capitalism has been so successful at generating growth.  Surpluses monetary savings are always flowing, in the form of lending, into productive activity.

There is one way in which someone could reasonably say destor's headline is misleading.  Read straightforwardly, one might take it to mean that the US has certain debts that it will never repay; that is, that it has debts on which it will default.

But that never happens either.  The US always pays its debts, and it never defaults.  What destor clearly means is that as the US pays off old debts it is always acquiring new ones.  So it is always indebted.  And not only is it always indebted, the world of lenders likes it that way.

Maybe the headline should just say, "The US Will Always Be Indebted".

Back up and think a minute. Which would you rather have ...

1) A country on the doorstep of the White House asking for financial aid?

or

2) A country investing their sovereign wealth in US Treasury bonds where their principle is secured and they earn a constant revenue flow from the interest earned?

I'd prefer the latter.

As for paying off the debt, Clinton had it in the bag when he handed the White House over to Bu$h in 2000 ... remember the projected surplus? Of course, both Clinton and Bush Sr. started to cannibalize the ColdWar infrastructure cashing in on the valuable land assets and withdrawing and downsizing the military in order to get the over-inflatted deficit down to a manageable level. An option not available to Obama since most of what is left is strategic for future mobilization if it ever became necessary for the US to become involved in global situations.

There are two methods by which the deficit can be lowered, and they're mutually inclusive not exclusive.

First being getting the 25 million unemployed and under employed back to full time employment ... full time employment means the government is taking in more tax revenues - hint, hint. Also, since all municipalities and states rely on full-time employment as revenue resources for state run services, there's one less beggar at the federal door step. Besides just think about the average wage of 25 million people and the tax revenue such wages would draw into the government coffers ... that's a big chunk of change.

Second being increasing taxes. Since it's well known the business sector is paying a rate of taxation not enjoyed since the 60's, there's an immediate source to recapture. And if people want more government services, then there's a price tag that must be acknowledged and paid. For example, during Ronnie Raygun's first term, he increased social security withholding to create the trust fund. Good idea for the future, however, only the employee had to pay the increase, not the employer. So if there's an issue with social security becoming insolvent, the it's about time to increase the employer's contribution ... fair is fair.

What is hard to comphrend is how people can complain about taxes being too high while not acknowledging the reason for the high deficit is because of  past legislation that was approved without the necessary funding ... the deficit is high because Congress didn't allocate the money so they floated a loan.

So the best way to curb the deficit is to force Congress to only pass legislation with available funds. If there they need more, then they either cut spending from some other source or raise taxes. So the public will either have to accept diminished government services or pay more in taxes.

So if all legislation has the necessary funding allocated from existing revenues, then what's leftover can be used to buy down the debt. It will take time, but without Congress using the revolving deficit credit card to make impulse purchases, the debt will eventually drop to a manageable level.

As far as the purchasing the fruits of the world's productive capacity, that requires a solid employment foundation with salaries and benefits. But even more so, enough net income after satisfying one's needs ... housing, clothing, transportation, food and so forth ... to make those purchases to keep the engine of consumerism alive. Otherwise you end up with one person in poverty needing to make a purchase of an item produced by another person in another country who is more impoverished than the first. Such a vicious cycle is a downward trend to the bottom. The current system of global commerce is the driver that is creating the havoc in the global economic and employment picture. Fix that and the rest will follow.