> 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 b

> 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.