Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Print Subscription
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

National Debt

America's $30 Trillion National Debt Should Be a Wake Up Call

But Washington just keeps hitting the snooze button.

Eric Boehm | 2.2.2022 10:25 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
jp-valery-hfrDZAXwb5c-unsplash (1) | Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash
(Photo by Jp Valery on Unsplash)

America's national debt exceeded $10 trillion for the first time ever in October 2008.

By mid-September 2017 the national debt had doubled to $20 trillion. That was so recently that it probably feels like the week before last. Remember Donald Trump issuing a threat of nuclear war against North Korea from a New Jersey country club? Did you see Thor: Ragnarok in theaters? That was fall 2017. It was less than five years ago.

Yesterday, data released by the U.S. Treasury confirmed that the national debt reached a new milestone: $30 trillion.

The speed with which the federal government has piled up the third mountain of 10 trillion I-O-U notes is truly remarkable. Yes, the response to the COVID-19 pandemic drove government borrowing and spending to stratospheric heights—but even before COVID appeared on the horizon, the operative question about the national debt was when not if the country would hit $30 trillion. The drivers of the debt are an unbalanced entitlement system and a persistent gap between government spending and tax revenue—the result of more than two decades of poor decision making in Washington, where politicians from both parties have carelessly borrowed to pay for everything from foreign wars to $1,200 checks for most Americans (even those earning six-figures) during the pandemic.

Source: Peter G. Peterson Foundation; https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/12/14-charts-that-illustrate-our-fiscal-situation-as-we-close-out-2021

Even if the growing debt doesn't trigger a default or other crisis, it will have a material impact on Americans' futures. Higher levels of debt are correlated with lower levels of future economic growth in no small part because the amount of money that must be siphoned out of the economy to pay the interest on the debt will keep getting larger. Every dollar used to service the debt is a dollar that can't be used to invest in new technology, pay workers, or save for the next rainy day.

Higher levels of debt also make it more difficult for policy makers to combat inflation, which is eroding away at Americans' paychecks and savings faster than at any point in the past 40 years.

The $30 trillion debt is "a jaw-dropping number that is a real cause for concern," Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), a nonpartisan group that advocates for balancing the budget, tells The Wall Street Journal. "It is the result of both borrowing for really important crises, most notably the Covid pandemic, but also trillions and trillions of borrowing for no reason other than politicians have stopped being willing to pay the bills."

But aside from MacGuineas and her small band of allies, there's little recognition in Washington that the debt is a problem. That's another problem. When the national debt ticked past $10 trillion in 2008, it became a major talking point in that year's presidential campaign. "That's $30,000 for every man, woman, and child," soon-to-be President Barack Obama said during a campaign event in Nebraska that year. "That's irresponsible. That's unpatriotic."

Later, after federal spending exploded during the Great Recession, the Tea Party movement popped up to demand fiscal responsibility from Obama and Congress. The results were mixed—sequestration and temporary budget caps slowed runaway spending even if they didn't reverse it—until the Republican-controlled Congress under President Donald Trump abandoned the effort and jacked up spending.

America has now borrowed an average of $7 billion per day for the past year, according to the CRFB, but the current brand of supposedly conservative populism is driven by culture war conflict, not concern about the unspooling of America's fiscal foundations.

And while neither party is serious about reining in the debt, both are responsible for a pandemic-era spending binge that was entirely financed with the nation's credit card. While some of the $5.3 trillion in emergency pandemic spending was a justifiable response to a once-in-a-generation crisis, much of it was wasted. States received hundreds of billions in budgetary aid and, in many cases, are now running huge surpluses. Direct checks that were supposed to tide over employees whose workplaces were shuttered by COVID also went to people earning six figures while working from home. Every dollar borrowed and spent as part of last year's $1.9 trillion relief bill is estimated to have generated only $0.73 in economic activity.

Source: Peter G. Peterson Foundation; https://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/12/14-charts-that-illustrate-our-fiscal-situation-as-we-close-out-2021

The debt won't stop rising when the pandemic passes. Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are in dire fiscal straits and will become even more costly as the average American gets older. Even without another unexpected crisis, deficits will exceed $1 trillion annually, which means the debt will continue growing, both in real terms and as a percentage of the economy. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government will add another $12.2 trillion to the debt by 2031.

Which means that it won't be long before we're looking back at this week and saying that it felt like just yesterday the debt hit the $30 trillion mark.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: The Canadian Truckers Have a Point About Border Security Theater

Eric Boehm is a reporter at Reason.

National DebtDeficitsDebtCoronavirusGovernment SpendingInflationBudget Deficit
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (152)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Commenter_XY   4 years ago

    Let's Go, Brandon!

    1. Lindsey J. Walker   4 years ago

      I have just received $18000 of my last month working and i was doing this in my part time online. (re90) i joined this 4 months before and i know how easy this job is to make money online.

      Join now from this website below.==-==>> http://moneystar33.blogspot.com/

    2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   4 years ago

      Can bohem remind everyone that he is a disingenuous cunt?
      He fucking voted for this.

      1. VULGAR MADMAN   4 years ago

        He voted for no mean tweets.
        Mission accomplished!

        1. daveca   4 years ago

          Biden and Oretard blew north of 8 TRILLION ON Ibama care.

          Some line items were unlimited spending which also means unlimited debt.

          Biteme will possibly blow more than that on bungling Covid.

      2. Edith   4 years ago

        I make 85 dollars each hour for working an online job at home. KLA01 I never thought I could do it but my best friend makes 10000 bucks every month working this job and she recommended me to learn more about it. The potential with this is endless.
        For more detail …. http://rb.gy/u603ti

  2. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

    "And while neither party is serious about reining in the debt, both are responsible for a pandemic-era spending binge that was entirely financed with the nation's credit card."

    BOFF SIDZ!!!

    Let's talk about a couple of facts.

    1) In March of 2021, the Republicans voted against the $1.9 trillion America Rescue Plan Act--unanimously. It was physically impossible for them to have been any more opposed. That bill passed over the objections of every single Republican in Congress. Feel it in your bones.

    2) Joe Manchin's opposition to Build Back Better only mattered because every single Republican in Congress opposed spending $3.5 trillion (at least) on Build Back Better. The reason the Democrats had to use budget reconciliation to try to pass it was because every single Republican opposed that spending.

    To pretend that both sides are to blame in this spending is to pretend that that the Republicans unanimously opposing more spending is the same as the Democrats supporting more spending--or that Republicans spending (1.9 + 3.5) $5.4 trillion less is no different from the Democrats spending $5.4 trillion more.

    The Republicans have been vastly superior to the Democrats on spending, and failing to reward them for that in November would be a sin against fiscal conservatism. Do you want future Congresses' to think that even if they oppose spending, it won't make any difference for them in the polls? Please stop carrying water for the socialists.

    1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

      The Republicans have not been vastly superior to Democrats as regards spending. They happily voted for massive spending when they were in control. The only difference has come, half-heartedly, when Democrats were in control and they could raise their hand in opposition while knowing they made no difference.

      The "both sides" contingent pretends it is a 50-50 responsibility. The "Democrats only" contingent pretends it is a 100-0 responsibility. The reality is more like a 55-45 responsibility.

      1. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   4 years ago

        I count it at 57 - 43 responsibility.

        1. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

          I C wot U did there 🙂

      2. NOYB2   4 years ago

        The Republicans have not been vastly superior to Democrats as regards spending

        Oh, I think they have been. Republican spending is usual political horse trading and government waste. It's not great, but it's generally sustainable.

        Democrats have gone batshit crazy in their spending, beyond anything the US can borrow, blackmail, tax, or otherwise obtain.

    2. Commenter_XY   4 years ago

      Boehm the Birdbrain voted for this, Ken.

      It is really a shame that Biden supporters alone cannot get the government they voted for, good and hard.

    3. mad.casual   4 years ago

      It was physically impossible for them to have been any more opposed.

      Legislatively impossible. Physically, insurrection to stop spending was, and is, always an option but, despite Reason's sterling good-faith and irreproachably honest BOWF SIDEZ!ism, insurrection is something only the people can do and it's always wrong when one group of people do it even if they literally say, "We're doing this because the other side showed us it was acceptable."

    4. Rossami   4 years ago

      The problem with that analysis is that it is limited in time. The republicans have been "vastly superior" whenever they are the minority party (which includes all your recent examples). However when they are in the majority, they also start spending like drunken sailors. Looked at over a longer period and yeah, it is a "both sides" problem.

      1. Union of Concerned Socks   4 years ago

        ^This. The only party that has been "vastly superior" is the party in opposition. Whichever party has held the executive and legislative initiative has shown no fiscal discipline whatever.

        Yes, the Ds have been worse, but that's a pointless distinction at $-30T.

        Neither party has a hope of righting the ship until the Fed pulls a Volcker, jacks the cost of money, and threatens fiscal oblivion. And if the Fed doesn't pull a Volcker, well... 1920s Germany anyone?

        1. JFree   4 years ago

          No the scenario is not 1920's Germany. It is current day Japan. A multi-generation stagnation/deflation. That has been disguised for the last 20 years solely because the US has successfully managed to force zero interest rates and created asset bubbles everywhere. That is now presumably ending. Or will someday when kick the can and subsidize the 1% fails to produce growth.

          1. Union of Concerned Socks   4 years ago

            I was referring to monetization of a fiscal deficit by printing money, which is what Germany did just after WWI. Japan has not, at least so far, debased its currency to pay for an undisciplined legislature.

        2. DarrenM   4 years ago

          The only thing is that when Democrats spend like drunken sailors, they do it with the intent of establishing programs that continue the spending far into the future. I don't see this so much with Republicans. At least, I can't think of any. Republican spending usually a one-time thing except for those items that end up with bipartisan support anyway. Neither is acceptable, though.

      2. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

        The bills that don't pass because of the opposition of Republicans didn't get much front page treatment in the run-up to the 2020 election, but the fact is that the Republicans killed both a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill and a $500 billion skinny deal--in the two weeks before the November election of 2020.

        https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-relief-bill-pelosi-mnuchin-negotiations-2020-10-20/

        I appreciate that the Republicans have been less than fiscally conservative in the past, but that hasn't been the case in this Congress--or the Senate Republicans--since before the last election, when Trump was in the White House. Showering money on your constituents is a tried and true way to get reelected, and seeing the Republicans refuse to rain cash down on the voters two weeks before the election of 2020 may be the greatest principled feat of fiscal restraint in modern American history.

        The spending we've had under Biden would have been in addition to that--if it hadn't been for Republican restraint when they had control of the Senate and when they had a Republican in the White House back in October of 2020. They deserve credit for killing that spending--just as they deserve credit for whatever fiscal restraint we've had since then. Meanwhile, the Republicans in the House are generally more fiscally conservative than the Republicans in the Senate.

        1. Kevin Smith   4 years ago

          In the two weeks before the election it was pretty obvious that Trump was not going to win, so any stimulus they passed at that time would be distributed by the inevitable Biden administration. They were already operating in "opposition mode" to deny Biden an early win.

          Had Trump won, I have little doubt a re-hashed 1.9 trillion stimulus would have passed in March with full Republican support

          1. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

            I don't think it was obvious at all, and evidence of them killing a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill before the election isn't a good reason to think they would have abandoned their fiscal conservatism once the upcoming election wasn't really a concern anymore. Again, few swing voters, in November of 2020, were up in arms over fiscal conservatism. They almost certainly lost more voters than they gained by being fiscally conservative. If you want to get reelected, you're supposed to shower money on your constituents. And this is why it's so important for libertarian capitalists to reward the Republicans for being so fiscally conservative. If there's no benefit at the polls for being fiscally conservative, why should the Republicans stick their necks out in the future?

          2. sarcasmic   4 years ago

            Had Trump won, I have little doubt a re-hashed 1.9 trillion stimulus would have passed in March with full Republican support

            Yup. Republicans are only fiscal conservatives when it makes the other team look bad. Otherwise they spend, spend, and spend some more.

            1. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

              Got to get right in and defend your precious democrats, don’t you?

      3. Sometimes a Great Notion   4 years ago

        Yup, and someone, not me, could make the case the Dems were fiscally responsible when they blocked Trump's effort to get a trillion dollar infrastructure bill passed.

        Me I'd call it naked politics of stopping the other side from achieving a goal.

        1. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

          How could the Republicans block $5.4 trillion in new spending without the progressives pushing for $5.4 trillion in new spending?

          P.S. Manchin's opposition only mattered because the Republicans were 100% unanimous in their opposition to that spending. If it hadn't been for the 100% opposition of the Republicans, Manchin's opposition wouldn't have mattered at all, and we'd have that spending.

        2. DarrenM   4 years ago

          "Investment" in infrastructure could be a net positive, but every bill seems to be primarily graft and corruption with just enough spending on actual needs to either create a fig leaf of something acceptable to the voters or to blackmail others into voting for it.

      4. JesseAz   4 years ago

        Democrats wanted 6 trillion initially for infrastructure. Even with Republicans it became 1 5. Savings of 4 trillion is kind of big.

      5. NOYB2   4 years ago

        The problem with that analysis is that it is limited in time. The republicans have been "vastly superior" whenever they are the minority party (which includes all your recent examples). However when they are in the majority, they also start spending like drunken sailors. Looked at over a longer period and yeah, it is a "both sides" problem.

        That's bullshit. Look at the spending and revenue changes year by year.

        Republicans increase the budget deficits because they cut taxes as well, not because they spend excessively. And from a libertarian point of view, it's taxing and spending that matters, not deficits.

    5. JFree   4 years ago

      FUCK YOU KEN

      You R whores are the ones who NEVER fucking rein in spending but always yap on about how you are so fucking superior to the D's on spending. You aren't. You just keep lying about that.

      1. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

        You should attack the premises, attack the logic, or build a contradicting counterargument of your own using facts and logic.

        I dare you.

        1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

          Don't refute Ken with logic. He'll mute you for that.

          1. Hank Phillips   4 years ago

            Refute who? That mystical grey rectangle?

            1. sarcasmic   4 years ago

              It's how you become a mystery grey rectangle. Arguing with Ken means disagreeing, and the only explanation for disagreement is being a leftist. Ken has no need to argue with leftists because they're degenerates. They're subhuman. So he mutes anyone who argues against him, especially if they use facts and logic.

              1. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

                Poor, poor, angry baby. Ken slaps you around in every debate and tore your rectum up real good. Just go to your room and cry it out until you fall asleep. I’m sure a bottle of Night Train will help you go night night.

                1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

                  Sarcasmic went off the deep end quite awhile ago. He can't debate, but he does a damn good job of projecting and heckering.

                  1. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

                    And he’s very defensive when his precious democrats are criticized.

          2. VULGAR MADMAN   4 years ago

            ^^^
            This is the clown who won’t shut up about all the people he mutes.

        2. JFree   4 years ago

          Your argument is that we are at $30 trillion in debt and you are STILL pretending that the R's are the ones who are most likely to fix the problem - despite the transparently obvious FACT that BOOAF SIDEZ of the DeRp's have CAUSED the problem.

          Worse - the permanent blow job that you give to R's is merely proof that you CAN never hold the R's accountable for their own failures in dealing with governance. Because OMG - the D's are like Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan rolled up in one - so at least R's are the lesser evil and are only going to keep jacking up spending and debt. What a tool.

          1. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

            "despite the transparently obvious FACT that BOOAF SIDEZ of the DeRp's have CAUSED the problem."

            That assertion has been specifically contradicted by the facts in this thread.

            The fact is that the Republicans in Congress have admirably fiscally conservative, and they deserve credit for it.

            Bothsideism doesn't refute that fact, and neither does the perfect solution fallacy.

            1. JFree   4 years ago

              So what you are really saying is that when the debt hits $100 trillion your nose will still be up the rectum of the R's ensuring that they are not ever to be held accountable for any of their 'failures' by their own partisans. There is no debt limit or increase that you actually give a fuck about.

              Will you still be yapping 'perfect solution fallacy' at that point? Do you understand that the synonym for lesser evilling is 'my party right or wrong'? The easiest thing in the world is for a partisan hack to preach to the choir of fellow partisans that the opposition is totally evil. It doesn't take an Aristotle or a Hannah Arendt to recognize how quickly For the lesser evil is reckoned a good in comparison with the greater evil, since the lesser evil is rather to be chosen than the greater. the above sentence can be edited so that a partisan can defend anything as a positive. The result soon becomes - there is no more important principle than - don't ever let the other DeRp win an election (even if your own vote doesn't ever matter one whit). If they do, then the election was almost certainly fraudulent too.

              How deep into that sewer do you really want to wade?

              1. Ken Shultz   4 years ago

                What I'm really saying is that your response is a bunch of emotionally charged supported without fact or reason. How embarrassing for you!

          2. sarcasmic   4 years ago

            Would you rather be speeding 100mph towards a cliff or be speeding 95mph towards a cliff? 95mph is obviously better, and if you'd rather not be speeding towards a cliff then you're just spouting a perfect solution fallacy.

            You should be admiring the people speeding towards the cliff at a mere 95mph, and give them credit for being so responsible and prudent.

            1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

              So you agree Democrats are vile and should be the first ones off the cliff?

            2. DarrenM   4 years ago

              At 95 mph, you get the chance to scream a little more before heading off the cliff. Maybe that last scream will prompt someone to hit the brakes.

          3. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

            Really? Do congressional democrats have anyone who would even bother to attempt to balance the budget? Anyone? The republicans do. They may not be in control, but a good number of them exist.

            The grassroots future of the democrats is AOC. The grassroots future of the republicans are fiscal conservatives.

            1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

              Machin at least says he wants to reduce the debt and deficit, and used that as part of his reason for his opposition to BBB. But considering how far left the Overton window has shifted over the past couple of decades, Machin is a rarity, and practically a Republican. Then again, Truman and Kennedy would have a hard time in the current Democratic party. Yes, Truman was a self labeled progressive and New Deal supporter, but he also had a history, especially when he first started out, of demanding fiscal responsibility and honesty.

              1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

                And, for the most part, was far more pragmatic then modern progressives.

              2. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

                I doubt 1992 Bill Clinton would be acceptable to them anymore.

                1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

                  Likely not, the Democrats are unrecognizable anymore. I remember when there were actual Democrats I could agree with on topics.

      2. NOYB2   4 years ago

        You R whores are the ones who NEVER fucking rein in spending

        That's simply wrong. Republicans generally cut spending when they are in power. They just cut taxes even more, resulting in higher deficits overall.

    6. sarcasmic   4 years ago

      Republicans are less-terrible than Democrats. Yes.

      Unless we're using Orwellian Newspeak, less-terrible doesn't mean good. It means terrible, but not as terrible as the other guy.

      You were right before when you said Democrats are totalitarians and Republicans are "mere authoritarians."

      Logically then, support for Republicans is support for authoritarianism.

      When I pointed out this logic, rather than rethink your support for authoritarians you called me a leftist and muted me.

      So folks, when Ken says he wants people to argue with facts and logic, he is not telling the truth. He has no stomach for actual debate because he is right, and anyone who disagrees is a leftist to be muted. Especially if they use facts and logic.

      1. Ali Akbar Alexander   4 years ago

        I disagree. Ken is the most logical person on this board. Just look at his past arguments, such as the one he made about Covid escaping from a CCP lab (which it totally did!) and if he’s wrong it doesn’t matter anyway because the real point is that Dr. Fauci is kind of like the moral equivalent of Dr. Mengele. Can you argue with rock-solid logic like that, you liberal puke? Didn’t think so. Game, Set, Match you fucking troll.

        1. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

          It's really creepy when you talk to yourself with socks, Sarc. I believe this was mentioned several times before.

      2. Salted Nuts   4 years ago

        Where am I on your mute list?

    7. dbruce   4 years ago

      Trump promise .... balanced budget in 5 years, maybe less.
      TRUMP: There are so many things that we can cut ... and we can balance the budget very quickly. HANNITY: You think in five years? TRUMP: I think over a five-year period. And I don't know, maybe I could even surprise you.
      [Fox News - Hannity, 1/21/16]

      1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

        He did attempt multiple cuts but was villified for those proposals and blocked in the Senate mostly but Democratic senators, once he lost control of the House any shot at cutting spending was totally gone. I am not saying he doesn't deserve some blame, but he did propose cuts which the progressive Democrats and the media lambasted him for, and the Democrats almost universally opposed him, while not enough Republicans supported him.

        1. dbruce   4 years ago

          Would his multiple cuts have paid off the national debt in 5 years? He claimed he was the world's greatest negotiator. Mathematically it was impossible, he would have had to cut the whole budget and still come up $Trillions short, at the same time cutting taxes. It was just one of his impossible promises that could not happen. Here's another one.... All illegal immigrants out day one.
          He said... "And by the way, do you know that the gangs that you see, all of these terrible gangs that you see, many of those gangs are made up of illegal immigrants, and they're tough dudes. And by the way, they're going -- DAY ONE they're going to be out of here. We're going to get rid of them DAY ONE."
          [CNN, 9/24/15]

          1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

            That analysis is based upon projected GDP growth, however, it is reasonable to suspect GDP would have grown in comparison to the shrinking deficit. Could he have done it in five years, I doubt it, but the point was he didn't even get a chance to try, because of opposition from progressives and their media sycophants, which scared squishy Republicans so much that they weren't even willing to try. The last time we had meaningful budget cuts and reform was when Gingrich and the GOP forced Clinton to accept them. And yes, they did force him, as he kept vetoing their budgets and they kept sending them back until he agreed to them.

            1. dbruce   4 years ago

              President Trump's first full budget called on Congress to spend $4.1 trillion the next year, cutting nothing off the national debt. Show me how he could eliminate the national debt in 5 years. He had majorities in both House and Senate. Show your work.

              1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

                He didn't ever have a veto proof majority, as you well know. So deflection. His proposals for cuts were separate from his budget. They included such things as ending Obamacare. And I said it was doubtful he could do it in five years, did you even bother reading what I wrote? Or are you so blinded by partisanship that you can't comprehend anything that doesn't agree with your orthodoxy?

                1. dbruce   4 years ago

                  There is a HUGE difference between doubtful and impossible. He had 4 years to get even ONE balanced budget and he couldn't even get that done, and that is millions of miles away from PAYING OFF the national debt.

          2. DarrenM   4 years ago

            The only thing anyone can reasonably expect is to a reduction in the deficit, then a reduction in the debt, but it has to be continuous and something both sides sign on to. Otherwise, one side could reduce the debt, but the other side will get negate anything when *they* get in power. Politicians can promise anything, but can't do anything other than to try to reduce the debt and even that's rare.

      2. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

        He tried to cut spending but was opposed every inch of the way by people like you. The same people who are still trying to destroy him even now.

        1. dbruce   4 years ago

          He should have read the Constitution.... Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be INCAPABLE of holding any office under the United States.

          1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

            You should read the Constitution, Congress shall make no law that abridges free speech. Trump never told them to revolt or overthrow the government, he told them to protest peacefully, which is protected speech. The reason no one has ever been convicted under the third clause of the 14A was because it was specifically written to deal with former Confederate politicians and veterans, however, they didn't even enforce it after it's passage, as any number of Confederates later served in Congress, and some even served in the military.
            If we enforced this as you read it, almost anyone who protested the Vietnam war, Iraq War, who called for the death or overthrow of Trump or Bush also would be barred from office, and anyone who said they were in the resistance would be barred from office, as Trump was the legally elected President. So stop with the historically illiterate Sedition charge.

            1. dbruce   4 years ago

              His speech had FIGHT in it 20 times.

              1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

                And it also had peaceful in it multiple times and protest multiple times. Therefore you are cherry picking a single word, taking it out of context and trying to punish someone for protected speech. Thus proving that you are the actual authoritarian who is willing to use the government to deny the voters the choice of who they may vote on in the future. Thanks for playing.

              2. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

                Obama also used fight multiple times in speeches, as has Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Biden, all of them in regards to Trump and Republicans when Trump was president. Are they also guilty of sedition? Fuck, you are stupid and gullible.

                1. dbruce   4 years ago

                  There is a HUGE difference between using the common word fight a couple times in regular conversation and no attack on the Capitol or anything else, happening and a sore loser demented/insane President using it 20 times. If you hang your VP and use the word "peaceful", it is no longer a felony. I don't remember Joe, etc. watching on TV the lynch mob building gallows and chanting HANG MIKE PENCE and waiting 3 hours and doing nothing. Compare the 768 charged so far compared to ZERO with your pitiful comparison. Rhodes coordinated travel across the country to enter Washington, DC, equipped themselves with an arsenal of weapons, donned combat and tactical gear, and were prepared to answer Rhodes’s call to take up arms at Rhodes’s direction. They have been charged with Seditious Conspiracy, yes, they are guilty of sedition, IMO.

              3. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

                You’re so desperate to twist things around, it it won’t work. Trump didn’t incite violence, but democrats frequently do.

          2. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

            Bill Clinton should have been barred from office as he burned his draft card, which is against federal law.

            1. dbruce   4 years ago

              In the autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft but received a high number (311) and was never called to serve.

              1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

                He burned his card and went to England for school so he didn't have to serve. A draft number of 31 almost guaranteed you would be drafted. The he didn't get called is a poor excuse that again is ignorant of history. A low draft number was considered as good as being drafted. Fuck, that is pretty fucking common knowledge. His actions in burning his card and going to England to avoid the draft were used by his opponents as attacks in both 1992 and 1996. The news reported on it pretty extensively at the time.

                1. dbruce   4 years ago

                  He didn't have to burn his card and college deferments were common (Trump had four). I posted ...... In the autumn of 1969, Clinton entered the draft but received a high number (311) and was never called to serve. Did you notice I posted posted (311)? THREE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN? Fuck, that is pretty fucking common knowledge. On your point never served, the fake "bone spurs" ancestry has never served. His grandfather ran from Germany to avoid the draft.

          3. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

            What difference does it make? Trump did none of those things. Not like democrats. Always calling for violence, or u willing to condemn or even stop it.

            Besides, republicans aren’t capable of treason or anything like it. Whereas treason, sedition and insurrection are second nature to leftists.

            1. dbruce   4 years ago

              Stewart Rhodes, the founder and leader of the far-right Oath Keepers militia group, and 10 other members or associates have been charged with seditious conspiracy in the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol.

              1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

                Charged, not yet convicted. And the sedition act has never been utilized because most scholars believe it wouldn't stand up to scrutiny under the 1A. And many legal experts have stated that the charges against these 10 individuals are likely not going to stick either. They have been charged with sedition for conversations they had,, but never carried out, i.e. they talked about something and never acted on it and there is little evidence they even tried to act on it. Most believe the sedition charges were brought by the prosecutors as overcharges hoping to scare them into plea bargaining to a lesser degree.

                1. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

                  And it’s political persecution. No real crime took place.

                2. dbruce   4 years ago

                  In court they will have a tough time explaining the arsenal they had waiting just outside the Capital. Conversing about a coup will be hard to explain too, especially when the Feds play their conversations in Court. I am putting my money on the prosecutors, just by the fact that the oath keepers have complained they couldn't afford good lawyers. They should have thought about that before they spent all their money on the arsenal.

              2. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

                And it is really hard to charge Rhodes since he wasn't even in DC at the time. They have texts from him, but no evidence that it was anything more than talking.
                You can charge people for planning a crime, if you arrest them before and can show that they were making an effort to carry out the crime. It is almost never heard of to charge someone for planning a crime that never occurred. And getting a conviction is even harder. As it should be. Basically what the prosecutor is making a case is that they thought about sedition but then changed their mind.
                This is probably the stupidest attempt at a prosecution in the history of the DoJ. None of them are actually charged with any actual acts, just for their texts. The events of the day clearly demonstrated that they never even attempted to enact any of these plans either. And all they have to say as a defense is that they were never serious it was all in jest.
                Yes, they found some guns in a motel, miles away from the capital and none of them were carried into the capital, again, unless the prosecutor can show the guns are somehow illegal, or that the owner was barred from carrying firearms, the defense can argue that possession of firearms is legal in Virginia and covered by the 2A. Since the guns weren't used in an illegal manner, having guns in a motel miles away from the protest is evidence of nothing and is not illegal.
                There other big evidence is that they planned a rather comical and far fetched amphibious assault, but didn't acquire any boats and no attempt was made to acquire boats, and no boats were used. Again, the we were just joking defense would cover this.
                This is plainly either the prosecutor charging someone for sedition because of public pressure over no one yet being charged for that. A purely political charge. Or overcharging, hoping to force the defendants to plea to a lesser charge.
                You aren't the smartest person around are you? You don't perform a lot of critical thinking do you? Rather you just eat up the narrative of your side and accept it at face value.
                I condemned the 1/6 riots but trying to get a sedition charge based on texts and firearms that were never used and were stored miles away is pretty fucking flimsy.

                1. dbruce   4 years ago

                  Can't tell a (31) from a (311), your honor I rest my case.

    8. DarrenM   4 years ago

      The question is how a party acts when they are in power. They will always oppose the other party (spending) when they are in the minority.

  3. Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf   4 years ago

    A snooze button would be fantastic. What they are hitting is the PRINT button.

    1. Union of Concerned Socks   4 years ago

      Money printer go brrrrrrr

      1. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx5mE9XPcWw

      2. Chumby   4 years ago

        HAPERDEBT

  4. Chumby   4 years ago

    End all welfare spending. Close all foreign military bases. Stop all foreign aid.

    1. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

      End the drug war, eliminate the FBI, ATF, DEA, Dept of Energy, end student loan subsidies, wind down Fannie Mae, sell off all Federal land holdings to private ownership.

      Oh, and end the Fed

    2. JFree   4 years ago

      And to make that happen, we will hold our breath until our faces turn blue.

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   4 years ago

        If you hold your breath for about 20 min, a plastic bag could help, then you will not die from the wuflu

    3. NJ2AZ   4 years ago

      drops in the bucket.

      we need to seriously reevaluate our "obligations" to the elderly. Paying whatever it takes to keep them alive for as long as possible is not sustainable. If people need to frame that as "You want to push grandma off a cliff", fine. i simply acknowledge its not inherently moral to indebt my kids to keep grandma alive.

      1. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

        "we"?

      2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   4 years ago

        This the SS collection age should be 85, and placed 6 years after the median life expectancy. Like it originally was

        1. NJ2AZ   4 years ago

          with further adjustment for the fact that the population distribution is no longer a pyramid.

          all these promises made to the olds when there were hardly any of them are no longer viable

        2. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

          Yes, the left loves to throw it in the face of conservatives that Clinton had a paper surplus, but forget that the way it was achieved was by meaningful welfare and other entitlement reform, most of which Obama rolled back.
          Remember both Reagan and Bush offered actual SS reform, and Bush's was based on what Chili already had enacted and worked, but both were accused of killing Grandma.

          1. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

            Rather than reforming entitlements, progressives are actively pushing for more entitlements, while pushing the fantasy that a wealth tax will be able to pay for these entitlements.
            Universal healthcare, "free" university, "free" Pre-K daycare, etc.

    4. n00bdragon   4 years ago

      Cool. Approximately none of that accounts for the national debt, unless you count Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid as "welfare".

      1. Call me Don   4 years ago

        Study: $15 trillion in welfare spending has had little impact since 1964
        https://www.deseret.com/2012/7/11/20423578/study-15-trillion-in-welfare-spending

        1. Brian   4 years ago

          Except the part where, without it, we’d be in $15 trillion less debt.

          1. daveca   4 years ago

            with 8 T less from obamacare welfare wed nearly have it paid down.

          2. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

            And likely have far less fatherless families, as for a number of years Welfare wouldn't pay to eligible families if the man remained in the family. So, this created an environment were to receive benefits you had to divorce or never get married.
            I remember quite well when silver prices dove in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and all the mines in Shoshone county, ID basically shut down at the same time. Many of my parents friends got divorced simply so the family could receive welfare, with the plan to remarry once things got better. Almost none of them ever did. My parents refused, voluntarily gave up our house, our car, bought a clunker so my Dad could look for work, my Mom took a minimum wage job washing dishes and we moved into public housing. My parents have now been married for 48 years, and we got on our feet much quicker than those who divorced and went on Welfare. It required us to move to a town my parents didn't want to live in and putting us in a school my parents didn't like, but they did it and we survived and succeeded because they refused to take the easy route. I remember during that bad time we wore hand me downs and homemade clothes to school, the Lutheran Church helped give us gifts on Christmas and at times, because our food stamps were cut because Dad lived with us, we had to borrow money from my Grandparents to pay the $10/month rent (which really hurt my Dad's pride to borrow money from his in laws), because we had spent my Mom's check on food. But we did it.

      2. Chumby   4 years ago

        Those are all welfare.

      3. Hank Phillips   4 years ago

        What did Father Coughlin and the NSDAP count them as?

      4. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

        Social Security is not welfare. It is a huge scam on the working class, used to justify a flat wage tax that often takes more of a worker's paycheck than his income tax.

        Everyone to a man would be better off without social security ever being put in place.

        1. NOYB2   4 years ago

          Social Security is not welfare. It is a huge scam on the working class, used to justify a flat wage tax that often takes more of a worker's paycheck than his income tax.

          If only it were a flat tax. But in reality, low income people get a decent return on their contributions while higher income people are screwed over.

          Everyone to a man would be better off without social security ever being put in place.

          No, that's not true either. Social Security is essentially a pyramid scheme. The people who got in on it during the first few decades, while the population and economy were growing, did well.

          It's people retiring from now on who are getting increasingly screwed over.

    5. Kungpowderfinger   4 years ago

      There’s nothing that can be done.

      It’s ingrained in American culture that everything is free now. You can tell a grown-ass adult “How can I be overdrawn, I still have checks?” and they don’t see the humor in it.

      Of course, everything isn’t free, and the point of the article, that the debt has increased 150% in less than five years, isn’t even a blip on the radar of the public.

      We’ve seen what our betters have done to deal with fucking Covid. How do you think the collapse of the dollar is going to be handled? Grab your ankles, because BOHICA is right around the corner.

  5. RabbiHarveyWeinstein   4 years ago

    Why can't we just print more Deutschmarks?

    1. Chumby   4 years ago

      Or Continentals

      1. ElvisIsReal   4 years ago

        A+ reference

    2. Hank Phillips   4 years ago

      Um... have you seen the St. Louis Fed graph of M1 lately?
      http://www.fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

  6. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

    Can you imagine being the person who DIDNT already know this disaster was unfolding, and somehow finally came to the realization today?

    1. Rossami   4 years ago

      In fairness, there's a new crop of middle-school Civics students each year who are (or should be) learning about this for the first time.

      1. Chumby   4 years ago

        They aren’t being taught this. They are being taught to be be less white and what gender they should select for that day.

        1. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

          ^ This is true.

          You'd have to be a damn fool to have your kids in public school at this point, if you have the wherewithal to get them out.

          1. Chumby   4 years ago

            Government schools have turned into woke diabetic obese idiot factories. Jfree, jeff and Tony are the proofs of concept.

          2. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

            Depends on where you are at, here in rural Montana they are still being taught actual social studies and government, and there isn't the gender/cultural indoctrination.

      2. mad.casual   4 years ago

        In fairness, there's a new crop of middle-school Civics students each year who are (or should be) learning about this for at least the first time.

        FIFY

    2. Weigel's Cock Ring   4 years ago

      Come on man, what the overwhelming majority of human beings really know about history and economics wouldn’t fill even half a thimble.

      Even among so-called “well educated” Americans, the substantial majority have either convinced themselves there’s absolutely nothing to worry about or decided they would rather just not think about it at all. Thinking is very much out of vogue these days.

      1. NOYB2   4 years ago

        Little as Americans know, Europeans are even worse.

  7. Moderation4ever   4 years ago

    Want to reduce the debt you are going to need compromise, that means you need moderates in Congress. Keep electing extremist in each party and the problem will go on and on.

    1. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

      this is patently false.

      It's the moderates who got us here in the first place. It's the squishy middle who agreed to every major spending increase, every major new program and entitlement.

      We need extremists. We need them badly.

      1. Moderation4ever   4 years ago

        History shows that the debt was much less when parties cooperated. That is because they compromised. Each side gave somethings up. Today it is everything for my side and nothing for yours. That doesn't work and as a result debt goes up.

        Keep electing extremist and you will keep getting the same result.

        1. VULGAR MADMAN   4 years ago

          Cooperation gave us the Iraq war.

        2. soldiermedic76   4 years ago

          There used to be far more fiscally conservative Democrats. Almost all of them are gone now. The shellacking as Obama called it, pretty much eliminated the last of the even part way fiscally conservative, or even moderate, Democrats, and as we have seen happen to Manchin, the few who remained are villified by their own party today. The chance of working together is almost zilch with the current makeup of the Democratic party. As the party had become more white collared and affluent, they have been much less welcoming to fiscal reality.
          As for stating the Republicans are more extreme, these analysis have long been biased. The reality is that much of what is considered extreme right today, was once considered moderate. There are far more moderate Republicans serving in Congress than moderate Democrats. And after this election, there probably will be even more, as many of those that will win in swing districts will be more moderate than those in safe districts.
          As the Democratic party has shifted into more urban districts, and in many cases even given up contesting rural districts, they have grown less moderate. And if you look at voter data, you will find less ideological splits votes in rural districts compared to urban districts. While Republicans win rural districts their margin of victory tends to be less than the margin of victory for Democrats in urban districts. This indicates that their coalition tends to be less homogenized than the Democrats base coalition. The Democrats often don't even try to find a moderate that would win in these urban districts, because the party has grown so extreme in it's views.
          There are no more Reagan Democrats, the party has driven them out. Lieberman couldn't run as a Democrat today.
          And before you bring up Cheney and Murkowski, and the primary challenges against them, both ignored their constituents wishes, and in the case of Murkowski, have a history of doing so, and many Alaskans have been long dissatisfied with her.

    2. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

      What an absurd notion. The democrats need to elect moderates. The republicans need to get rid of theirs and elect more fiscal conservatives. The former won’t happen, but the latter will. Hopefully enough before it’s too late.

      I consider it far more likely that the democrats will have to be removed out of self preservation. As the country cannot survive endless mounting debt. More people are waking up to this reality every day. Hopefully enough democrats will figure this out and give up before things get ugly. At least if they want to survive.

  8. Hank Phillips   4 years ago

    Question for Eric: since 1971, how many dollars has Nixon's Anti-Libertarian Law shoveled into the maw of the entrenched Kleptocracy to keep the Libertarians out of debates and off of teevee?

  9. Hank Phillips   4 years ago

    The Atlas Shrugged Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade..." That would preclude the Communist income tax and Methodist ban making beer a felony. Those two amendments, and the Pure Food Law before them, and the Biden-Reagan anti-enjoyables and pro-asset-forfeiture looting laws, are the root causes of every Crash, Depression and recession since 1907. Laws against production and trade are violent destroyers of economic growth and stability.

  10. Dillinger   4 years ago

    America's one trillion dollar debt should have been a wake up call.

  11. Ali Akbar Alexander   4 years ago

    You know who I blame for this 30 trillion dollar deficit? Joe Fucking Biden and his DemocRAT national socialist communist administration. That’s who.

  12. Bill Godshall   4 years ago

    The massive US spending/deficits the past two years (and the subsequent increased inflation) were largely due to disastrous unscientific zero covid tolerance policies/advice/claims made by Anthony Fauci, Deborah Birx and CDC Director Robert Redfield (promoting/defending long term lockdowns, imposing mask mandates, trying to end covid transmissions among young and healthy people while ignoring the people at highest risk of dying).

    1. Bill Godshall   4 years ago

      Also responsible for creating the massive US debt were/are the Governors and Mayors (especially left wing Democrats) who imposed the disastrous policy advice of Fauci/Birx/Redfield, and the media propagandists and left wing social media execs who not only promoted the Fauci/Birx/Redfield lies as the truth, but censored and cancelled anyone who told the truth about their lies and disastrous policies.

  13. blondrealist   4 years ago

    Default? That's not how our monetary system works. Crisis? Yes - that is the risk, and will likely come in the form of really high inflation- and lower living standards for most everyone, except for the very rich.

    1. I, Woodchipper   4 years ago

      And they will attempt to outlaw bitcoin.

  14. Liberty Lover   4 years ago

    America's $30 Trillion National Debt Should Be a Wake Up Call
    But for whom?
    Presidents? Congress? The Fed? The Treasury?
    People in general know this is ridiculous, but no one wants their benefit cut. So where to start?
    Republicans only worry about fiscal responsibility when Democrats are in charge, Democrat never worry about fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately we have a two party system and neither party really cares. The covid stimulus was ridiculous and harmful. It would have been unneeded if the shutdowns had not occurred, which they are now admitting did little to nothing to stop the spread. Even then it should have only been to people that lost businesses and jobs, not everyone. But the NO.1 concern was incumbents buying votes with your money. The trouble with that is because of government inefficiency, waste, corruptions and fraud, it always cost you more money than they give you in the long run. You are experiencing that right now.
    How do we change it, I doubt we the voters can, just wait for the financial collapse. It will come.

    1. daveca   4 years ago

      when they stop spending its economic collapse.

      Be prepared for the crash after you get what you want.

    2. Michael D   4 years ago

      Yeap, that sums it up

  15. Moderation4ever   4 years ago

    "but no one wants their benefit cut"

    Why should they, they are getting those benefits at a bargain price. The government under taxes for the services provided. If people payed the taxes more in-line with what the services cost, they might think twice about what they are getting.

    1. NJ2AZ   4 years ago

      eliminate payroll withholding of income taxes. if people had to write a check monthly/quarterly/whatever, i bet we'd see just a bit more outrage over the spending

    2. Dick Hardwood   4 years ago

      Welfare for the majority and taxes on the minority are the democrat way.

      1. daveca   4 years ago

        Rob the Rich.
        Rob the poor.
        Rob till they cant rob no more.

  16. TJJ2000   4 years ago

    1913 Federal Reserve Act Pushed, Passed by a majority Democratic Congress and signed by a Democrat President.

    Making every citizen a SLAVE of the USA Nazi-Regime. So your not bound and whipped; your 'trade' medium has been hijacked by D.C. there really isn't much difference.

    1. daveca   4 years ago

      + my keyboard doesnt have enough numbers.

      That many.

  17. daveca   4 years ago

    @ 02 : 27

    Anyone know what hes doing/ holding?

    Scary.

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QeRv4IHoP70

  18. skydude   4 years ago

    Let's say we pay off the 30 Trillion dollar "debt" What happens to the money supply? It zeros out. So what is the money supply?

    1. Roberta   4 years ago

      It doesn't zero out because it's not all in the form of negotiable, circulating bonds. Federal Reserve notes are on their own account; Treasury notes are paid back in the form of FRN that can then continue to circulate.

  19. Roberta   4 years ago

    Is there any accounting anywhere of the national assets?

    1. Michael D   4 years ago

      I am not sure what you mean but does this help?

      https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/intlsumm/current.htm

  20. Frank Thorn   4 years ago

    Graphic illustration - What does one TRILLION dollars look like?

    http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html

  21. Art Gecko   4 years ago

    When the debt hits $300 trillion, we're going to look back at today as the good ol' days.

  22. NOYB2   4 years ago

    It’s not the debt that’s the problem, it’s the government spending.

  23. DarrenM   4 years ago

    Wasn't hitting $20 trillion debt supposed to be a wakeup call? This problem won't be addressed until the dollar is no longer the reserve currency of the world. Almost every politician will keep kicking the can further down the road until there's no more road.

    1. Michael D   4 years ago

      I think you are correct.

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Spain Wants To Ban Social Media for Kids. It Won't Work.

Reem Ibrahim | 2.11.2026 12:15 PM

A Viral Story Claims an ICE Worker Was Caught in a Child Sex Trafficking Sting. The Truth Is Much Stranger.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | 2.11.2026 11:45 AM

The House Just Reclaimed Its Tariff Power From Trump. Now Congress Can Try To Strike Down His Canada Tariffs.

Jack Nicastro | 2.11.2026 10:25 AM

Boston Man With Pending Green Card Application Held in ICE Custody for 5 Months

Autumn Billings | 2.11.2026 10:08 AM

Jobs Up, Federal Workers Down

Christian Britschgi | 2.11.2026 9:37 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks