Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James Jeude's avatar

I would add - and I think I'm in a tiny tiny minority here (is there a way to measure this?) - I look not only at the wallet and expenses against that wallet, but the federal borrowing that went into providing me with lower taxes that gave me a tiny bit extra in that wallet.

That's why I'd like journalists and pundits to stop saying "$2.3 trillion in yearly deficit"; I think most voters couldn't even tell you how many zeros are in a trillion and have no concept of how their lower tax rates were funded given that spending levels remain largely unchanged.

It would be more impactful if instead we said "the Government borrows around $14,000 per year per worker in the USA to fund the past 25 years of tax cuts since Clinton's surplus."

Imagine if a local business owner borrowed money, handed $14,000 to each worker in the community, and then the sales at his or her local shops went up - and bragged about increased sales while forgetting the debt that funded the consumption burst. We would laugh at them - but it's even worse - what if we learned that the debt was owed by all of us, not by the local owner who could move to Argentina when they retire. In a similar manner, the government is borrowing on our behalf to stimulate the economy and we forget that side of the P&L and balance sheet equation when looking in our wallets.

No posts

Ready for more?