So how do you make the economic consequences of deficits feel real?

At risk of droning on and getting banned from this site, I'll add that analytically, in principle, I like to use Milton Friedman's explanation that spending = taxes, so that it is impossible to cut taxes without cutting spending.

That is, if the govt wants to spend $1,000 it can...
* Collect $1,000 of taxes to pay for it, or
* Issue $1,000 of debt and then, with say an interest rate of 5% on federal bonds, collect $50 of taxes per year forever to pay the interest on it, which = $1,000 of taxes at present value.

Either way, $1,000 of spending results in $1,000 of taxes. It is just that the second way much of the tax collection is deferred. But saying that deferring taxes via deficit spending is "cutting taxes" is exactly the same as saying deferring your personal spending by charging up your credit card instead of paying cash is "cutting spending".

So if you believe tax cuts are good to spur the economy -- and I do! -- you must compliment a current tax cut with a comparable spending cut to get that benefit, or you will hurt the economy in the long run with higher taxes! Because you will have to collect enough future taxes to cover then-unreduced spending *plus* the deferred taxes.

At this point some ideological tax cutters will say, "but the tax cut up front grows the economy so much as to cover the cost of the later tax increases for free!" I let Bush's own tax-cutters answer this one, (via Greg Mankiw).
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2006/07/growth-effects-of-tax-policy.html
~~~
Lesson No 3: How tax relief is financed is crucial for its economic impact.
...
[snip to] ...Tax relief is good for growth, but only if the tax reductions are financed by spending restraint....
~~~
I mean, if Bush's own tax cutters say it's not true....

Test

sound test

test test test

tables for deficit... pic try

test test

This is a test, it's only a test, if it were more than a test it would be more interesting than this.