melancholyswiffer

Good bot.

I absolutely love citations needed and wish every body would listen to it.

Alright. This is clearly a fake ama right? That proof was horribly insubstantial and none of these answers are convincing in the slightest.

I'm not them, but this is not going to have a very satisfying answer. That is, it'll depend who you ask. There are some organizations that are very in the open that if you write things that don't fit the status quo, your out. There are also some organizations that give relatively free reign. However, media censorship is much more pernicious. As an organization with a particular narrative to sell, it's far less heavy handed to simply select for the sort of reporters that don't break with the status quo in the first place so you have to crackdown on the reporters much less often. As put by Rosa Luxembourg, "those who do not move will never notice their chains". So if you're the type to never challenge convention and the status quo, you may never notice that your journalism is on a leash.

Here is the link to the referenced answer

To augment and tailor their answer though: very few economist are actually worried about the national debt. The general consensus is that if the money borrowed is used for sufficient growth, it isn't an issue at all. In fact a growing field in economics is modern monetary theory which rejects the neoclassical economic thinking about national debt (in a self owned fiat currency), and instead looks at inflation as a sign of how much money can be printed (borrowed). Of course there is the glaring contradiction in the requirement of constant growth to justify taking on more debt. There can be no such thing as infinite growth in a finite world so deficit spending cannot go on indefinitely.