The Fed was enacted by the federal government and lives under its rule of law. I'm not sure what you're digging at.
I think we need numbers because I don't know what you mean when you say, "a whole hell of a lot of money." It looks like the citizens hold 70% of the debt. And keep in mind, these countries come to us to put their money in treasury bonds. They buy bonds that don't pay a very spectacular rate either (2.28% for 10 year bond). I'd caution against the rhetoric that we are broke, or people don't want to lend to us. It's often pushed by people who want to reduce federal spending (usually spending cuts on healthcare and welfare for the less fortunate).
You're right, but, I'm just focusing on the fact that the Fed maintains a distance, an independence, from politicians and government officials. The Fed is not directly accountable to an elected leader in the same way that a typical federal agency is.
As for who buys government bonds from the US Treasury, I just wanted to emphasize that the Fed is not the only buyer.
The often repeated notion that, "to a great extent, we owe this money to ourselves," is not necessarily comforting. Most American citizens have very little, if any, savings. The "ourselves" in that notion is heavily weighted to a relatively small number of wealthy US citizens. It's fair to question whether their interests align with the interests of the average US citizen.
> The Fed is not directly accountable to an elected leader in the same way that a typical federal agency is.
That can be a good thing. We separate the three branches, specifically not to have direct accountability to a single branch. And we buffer power changes over many election cycles. Otherwise one branch, say the executive, could just fire a judge or investigator when they broke the law.
> The often repeated notion that, "to a great extent, we owe this money to ourselves," is not necessarily comforting.
I wasn't repeating that notion. In my mind, going bankrupt is not a good thing in either case.
> Most American citizens have very little, if any, savings. The "ourselves" in that notion is heavily weighted to a relatively small number of wealthy US citizens.
I guess you could say, if you're wealthy you have more to lose, but poor people might lose their life if the US goes bankrupt whereas wealthy families would probably survive, though with a smaller balance sheet. So it matter to both poor and wealthy alike if we are reckless and go bankrupt, probably more so if you're poor. And I agree, we should be questioning if wealthy interests are putting themselves or the country first, because we don't have much use for those who aren't improving citizen's welfare.
I think we need numbers because I don't know what you mean when you say, "a whole hell of a lot of money." It looks like the citizens hold 70% of the debt. And keep in mind, these countries come to us to put their money in treasury bonds. They buy bonds that don't pay a very spectacular rate either (2.28% for 10 year bond). I'd caution against the rhetoric that we are broke, or people don't want to lend to us. It's often pushed by people who want to reduce federal spending (usually spending cuts on healthcare and welfare for the less fortunate).