Using the API, the total contributions people have made here for all time are $67,323,122.88. Meanwhile, the Debt-to-the-penny api (https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/d...) tells us that (as of 2025-07-25) the public debt is $29,361,169,407,599.91 whereas the day before it was $29,332,905,580,399.32, meaning the one day increase was $28,263,827,200.59.
So, the publics total contributions amount to 0.24% of the increase from Thursday to Friday last week. One part in 400 of the one day change, or about ~3 minutes worth.
Yes that has been the case since at least Reagan. The deficits go up under republicans more than democrats. The fiscal conservatism is a marketing ploy.
It seems you are more in need of an API to block the government to willingly reduce their income. The US spending per capita isn't that high compared to other developed countries, the US problem is the repeated decisions to have the wealthy citizens not contribute in proportion to their wealth.
Don't know about laws, especially since politicians can change those, but there are tools.
Common items used in woodworking and agriculture can be very useful: carving knives, axes, pitchforks and branding irons. Generally a big group of people holding their tools of trade in front of the palace/parliament/penthouse has been a pretty effective approach over the millennia.
The other side is not even 0.0001% of the population. Cops, military, firemen, they are all working class, like us. The veil drops when you realize we are ALL working class: the police, military, software engineers, firemen, nurses, doctors, lawyers, miners, farmers, teachers.
The other side has nothing. We operate the farms, the weapons, the hospitals, the IT infrastructure, the surveillance, the army, the transportation, the bullets, the drones and the incarceration facilities. The other side contributes nothing, does nothing, and if they continue on their current path, history has shown again and again that they will be reduced to nothing.
Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions, which is the ultimate consequence of austerity?
The public infratructure shrinks, while the rich get richer, partially from paid bond interesets. And you would just sit there and think, "yea, thats the way"?
Do you really think spending and not taxation is the problem? Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullable people, voting for harmful demagogues, so you finally get the "financial conervatives" you want?
>Why should the we accept the continued downfall of public institutions
A government spending less money does not equate to spending less money on public institutions. It can even mean spending more money on public institutions, assuming less money is spent on other things, such as unproductive wealth transfers.
>Eg. spending less on education leads to less gullible people...
Assuming the implication is that a well funded state managed education results in a population more resistant to (state?) propaganda; How would this be measured empirically?
I see it more like the wealthy want to maintain their relative position. They want others to have to pay to buy the things they want. They’ll still be just as wealthy, relatively, but they’ll also get the governmental changes they seek.
It’s not about getting the societal changes. If it were, they wouldn’t mind paying for it themselves. It’s about making others pay.
This doesn't make any sense. When people say this they mean they want more social spending and they are willing to pay more taxes to get it. The budget is what it is, the administration has made it clear that keeping the deficit low has nothing to do with the level of social spending they are willing to do. Sending money won't really do anything.
Demanding all wealthier people have a greater tax liability and not sacrificing one’s self is logically consistent and expected behavior.
If I am playing a game, and others do not want to ally with me, I am not going to make myself lose. But I can still signal that I am open to an alliance.
The intergovernmental holdings are accounting placeholders representing the Congressional raid on past Social Security surpluses. It's absolutely meaningful because those obligations are coming due as the program runs increasingly in the red. As legal obligations, they aren't binding the way public debt is, but current Social Security retirees have been promised these funds, and the government is already borrowing more from capital markets to meet these obligations. The current pace is $4.1 trillion in new borrowing by 2033 according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Basically the intergovernmental holdings are getting converted to more public debt.
I’m old. They’ve been saying this for 30-40 years. It’s bullshit. We finance social security out of current revenue and always have. If the economy shrinks that creates problems if it grows that does not.
If they're serious, they should return to tradition and sell honors. Like "Patrician" status if you donate $5M or more, which comes with certain minor benefits. (Like you don't need to go through airport security, or you gain access to certain private clubs, etc.) Hereditary "Equestrian" if you donate $100M in cash. And so on.
There wasn't a feudal monarchy around that wouldn't sell honors and titles if they were in dire enough straits, and a $37T debt is as dire as it gets.
Of course, this is an extremely bad idea for obvious reasons (e.g. endemic corruption in our low-trust society, government donations as political signaling, etc.) and would also be something of a joke...
It isn't uncommon to come across a polemic opining for increased taxation. Frequently the rhetoric will fit a common pattern, "I'm a [insert high status or high income descriptor] and here's my spicy contrarian take: We should all be paying so much more!"
While these people might still support the ideals of coercive taxation as a distinct issue, they might also pursue the voluntary route. If they truly value the government's services to the extent that they describe, it would seem like a win-win for them to volunteer their own wealth.
The fact that they do not suggests that there is a low degree of confidence in government spending. The value received per dollar spent may be perceived as a poor return on investment. This often stands in direct contrast to the stated case for increased taxation. It speaks to the merits of the well known Economic Calculation Problem, which axiomatically explains why the state is unable to optimally allocate resources.
This all sounds like bullshit posturing from politicians that got us into this mess.
The bottom line is that government income must increase and government spending must decrease. Income can come from taxation, competing with private enterprise, donations, or other channels. Decreased spending ultimately means doing less.
The only part of this that has become abundantly clear is that massively firing a bunch of people from government without a transition plan is incredibly expensive. If you want smaller government then expect government to do substantially less and the work force will decrease over time naturally. The small government political bullshit can seem to swallow that bitter pill.
If one thinks that more government is the solution to all problems, a painfully common modern view, then the most utility available from $1 one owns is handing that $1 directly to the government.
In practice, no one donates like this with their own money. They just vote for the government to take incremental money from others via ever more taxation.
It doesn't matter where output comes from whether its government or the private sector. People expect some manner of output at a certain acceptable price and quality. But, this completely misses the point.
The bottom line is government income must increase and government spending must decrease. That income can be from taxes, competing with commercial enterprise, donations, or whatever. It really doesn't matter.
The only part of this that has been evidently clear is that massively firing people from the government without a plan has proven extremely expensive. If you really want smaller government you need a plan to reduce the work force over time in a way that does not diminish the quality and quantity of output.
My point is that for someone who thinks government is the ultimate solution it's completely rational to have ever more government. More debt to finance more government simply follows. Can't have too much of a great thing. Etc.
>In practice, no one donates like this with their own money. They just vote for the government to take incremental money from others via ever more taxation.
In practice they throw piles of money at Trump - knowingly that it will lead to them saving an even larger money pile and thusly a net win.
Trump, who then happily drives up debt. Taxing people more is so uncool, so let's go easy on the whole taxes thing, just have the money printer go brrrrr and let inflationary tax serve its purpose
So, the publics total contributions amount to 0.24% of the increase from Thursday to Friday last week. One part in 400 of the one day change, or about ~3 minutes worth.