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.
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?
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.
>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
Readit News
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.
Also reminds me of an old anecdote:
"How much time it takes for Bill Gates to make a million dollars? Not doing anything for a minute."
BG could be replaced with anyone from TOP500[0] nowadays, I suppose.
https://www.bloomberg.com/billionaires/
1. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/gift-contributions-...
It seems like voting for "fiscal conservatives" results in bigger spending.
Paper from 2004 on the topic: https://shapiro.macmillan.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files...
Paper from 2022 on the topic:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01603477.2022.20...
Wikipage with just economic indicators by party:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_by_p...
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?
There are some very wealthy people that make a great show of demanding to pay higher taxes. Here’s a mechanism for them to demonstrate sincerity.
We want systemic changes, not patrons.
Taxes are for equity and fairness. Taxes are compulsory, donations are voluntary.
Taxes are payment for being for being rich.
Donations are taxes for being a good person.
Great rant: David Mitchell on Tax Avoidance from The Last Leg https://youtu.be/xc8epam4NyY?t=150
Then Mitchell being more serious: You can't blame the rich for paying as little tax as possible. I do the same https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/31/david-...
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.
Best way to reduce debt/GDP ratio is just support politics and policies where debt grows slower than economy grows.
Basically the intergovernmental holdings are getting converted to more public debt.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/social-security-trust-f...
edit: the minimum the form accepts is $5
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 feels poetic in a way, like the NFT version of an honors system.
Anything else would be more plutocracy.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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