3 ms·

It's by design. The GOP wants you to rub your face in the fact that the government runs on tax revenue, in the hope that you'll develop an allergy to taxes.

zrail 7y ago
The thing of it is, the US government hasn’t run on tax revenue for over 20 years. Clinton was president last time the US had a balanced budget.
- adventured 7y ago
  The US hasn't had a real balanced budget in much longer than that. During the Clinton era the balance was achieved in part by stealing from Social Security by keeping the surplus inflows and pretending there's a magic locked Social Security box with trillions of dollars in it (which are really IOUs backed by the Fed's ability to debase the future for past over-spending). We similarly treated as 'surplus' tax revenue that should have been set aside for future higher Medicare costs (which back then we knew full well were coming) and is now burning a massive hole in the present budget. The Clinton years were the twilight of the fantasy of abusing inbound entitlement tax flows for spending in the present and ignoring the future. That government spending party trick - kicking the can down the road - is now exhausted on a normalized basis, so we're rapidly heading toward perma QE as the only solution remaining other than very high taxation across all major income groups.
  - intopieces 7y ago
    Can someone explain to me the negative consequences of running a deficit? Countries aren’t people. They don’t die. As long as countries are willing to lend us money and the US can service the debt, what does it really matter if the national debt is multiples of the GDP?
    - zrail 7y ago
      There are no real negative consequences. Fiscally conservative people want people to think there are because it's a way to counter government spending with an argument that makes sense on the surface, despite the fact that the argument is completely wrong if you spend a few minutes thinking about it.
    - Gh0stRAT 7y ago
      We will spend $479 Billion in interest on the national debt in 2020. That's >22 NASAs-worth of money, if you care about space exploration. It could be roads or high speed trains or education or healthcare or whatever you care most about. Instead it's going towards paying interest on debt incurred for cheap political wins in the past...
      - intopieces 7y ago
        That doesn’t matter, because it’s not a binary choice — that is, we don’t not spend money on NASA because of the deficit.

zrail 7y ago

The thing of it is, the US government hasn’t run on tax revenue for over 20 years. Clinton was president last time the US had a balanced budget.

adventured 7y ago
The US hasn't had a real balanced budget in much longer than that. During the Clinton era the balance was achieved in part by stealing from Social Security by keeping the surplus inflows and pretending there's a magic locked Social Security box with trillions of dollars in it (which are really IOUs backed by the Fed's ability to debase the future for past over-spending). We similarly treated as 'surplus' tax revenue that should have been set aside for future higher Medicare costs (which back then we knew full well were coming) and is now burning a massive hole in the present budget. The Clinton years were the twilight of the fantasy of abusing inbound entitlement tax flows for spending in the present and ignoring the future. That government spending party trick - kicking the can down the road - is now exhausted on a normalized basis, so we're rapidly heading toward perma QE as the only solution remaining other than very high taxation across all major income groups.
- intopieces 7y ago
  Can someone explain to me the negative consequences of running a deficit? Countries aren’t people. They don’t die. As long as countries are willing to lend us money and the US can service the debt, what does it really matter if the national debt is multiples of the GDP?
  - zrail 7y ago
    There are no real negative consequences. Fiscally conservative people want people to think there are because it's a way to counter government spending with an argument that makes sense on the surface, despite the fact that the argument is completely wrong if you spend a few minutes thinking about it.
  - Gh0stRAT 7y ago
    We will spend $479 Billion in interest on the national debt in 2020. That's >22 NASAs-worth of money, if you care about space exploration. It could be roads or high speed trains or education or healthcare or whatever you care most about. Instead it's going towards paying interest on debt incurred for cheap political wins in the past...
    - intopieces 7y ago
      That doesn’t matter, because it’s not a binary choice — that is, we don’t not spend money on NASA because of the deficit.