[ModernMech]

Right they (the politicians) don't actually think that, they just say that to get cooked projections. Once those revenue projections turn out to be false, it doesn't matter because they already have their tax cuts baked in. Then everyone can blame the other side for deficits and campaign on fixing it. Rinse and repeat.

[thenewnewguy]

Let's be clear and not do this both sides thing - by "they" we mean Republicans. You may not agree with their policies or what they want to spend money on, but Democrats (at least in aggregate) live in the real world where they acknowledge for the government to spend money they will have to raise taxes.

Republicans are the only party that in the 21st century acts as though we can simultaneously cut taxes and increase spending and everything will be fine.

[ghastmaster]

As far as I have seen, in federal politics, the majority(left and right) spends, while taxes in general have not been significantly increased or decreased(percentage). What you are talking about is their rhetoric, which may be rhetorical itself.

What does change(and is more important) is Debt/Revenue:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=TZfm

The ratio is looking like it is trending in the right direction. If GDP decreases while nominal tax receipts increase, GDP does not change the debt, while the debt/Revenue ratio looks good for paying bills, while not boding well for economic health.

What is this "real world" you are referring to? There has to be a balance between current and future expenditures and economic health to facilitate these. Nothing exists in a vacuum.

[win311fwg]

There are two ways to tax the people: By destroying money or by creating money.

Republicans may generally prefer creating money over destroying money, but that doesn't mean they aren't applying taxation. "Tax cuts" in normal speak just means a reduction in how much money is being destroyed. It does not refer to a reduction in your tax burden.

[SlightlyLeftPad]

I’m not an economist but when trillions of dollars are created doesn’t that create an illusion of sorts of economic growth (revenue growth) in the form of inflation while also having the effect of making the general population poorer by reducing their buying power?

[win311fwg]

> making the general population poorer by reducing their buying power

Exactly. Also known as a tax. You can make someone poorer by taking their money and destroying it, or you can make someone poorer by letting them keep their money and devalue it by creating more. Same coin no matter which side you want to look at it. There is no such thing as a free lunch. The taxes are always going to get paid in the end. The only choice is in exactly how you want to pay it. Each method has its own set of tradeoffs, so, like with everything, different groups understandably believe in different methods. In practice, both methods will be used. Nobody, apart from the previous commenter, is ever completely hardline "money must only be destroyed" or "money must only be created", but groups will still debate over what is the optimal ratio.

[rayiner]

Democrats absolutely do not "live in the real world" regarding taxes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/07/19/medicare-...

"Taxing billionaires" is the left's version of "cut Medicaid fraud." It's a message for low-information voters who have a gut feeling that free stuff will require more taxes, but get confused converting from billions to trillions: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/03/06/msnbc-sug...

That's why Democrats say "we're the only developed western country without universal healthcare," but never "we're the only developed western country without a 15%+ VAT."