= new reply since forum marked as read
It hasn't been done because most people think we're still on the gold standard. Seriously, Nixon took the US out of Bretton Woods almost 44 years ago and people still assume an external constraint exists. The dollar is not convertible and it floats freely (within a range, to be sure). The only constraints are federal law and that only takes a maximum of 269 votes and a signature to change. That being said, there's a difference between observing that a thing can be done and actually doing it. The fact it can be done almost certainly means it will never need to be done.
I have heard of inflation and deflation. The better question is do you actually know what they are? It's cool that you namechecked them, I'm sure they'll appreciate it, but the way you did it suggests you don't understand their relation to monetary policy. Inflation is when the amount of money in the economy is out of balance with both the productive capacity of the economy and effective demand. It is not the old monetarist fantasy of simply adding more money to the money supply. If it were, we'd be swimming in hyperinflation with the trillions that have been added since 2008. Deflation is when effective demand is decreasing in relation to the productive capacity. In other words, you have massive oversupply.
"Spending more than you take in is bad no matter what." That is the dumbest thing I've read today. The federal government has run a deficit for something like 90% of its existence. If it's so bad, why are we still here? Seriously, though, that comment was just wrong. The federal government is not revenue or debt constrained. It does not need to raise revenue through taxation nor sell bonds to spend money. If it did, the dollar could not exist. Where would people have gotten the dollars to buy those bonds or pay those taxes if the federal government hadn't just issued them from nothing? After all, dollars don't grow on trees!
We don't have to raise taxes on the wealthy to raise revenue. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea, it's just that it's a good idea but not for the reason you thought. It's a good idea, if for only this reason, because it limits the amount of damage the wealthy can do to the real economy through speculation. Every time you give those silly bastards too much money, they create a bubble and blow up the actual economy (the one that produces real goods and services, not financial "innovation"
. It's a good idea because it reduces stratification in our society and limits the power that can wielded by a small group of people. It's a good idea because it directs private investment toward the real economy instead of the financial economy. It's a good idea because it helps to control supply-side inflation. Are those enough reasons to do it?
Fake what? I don't get your confusion. The measure of the economy is the real goods and services it can provide. It's not the accounting. We denominate it in dollars because it's easier, not because the dollars have some overarching purpose besides being a useful way to do business. Hell, Greenspan said it clearly in the video I linked above. The issue is not whether the money exists, but whether the real economy can provide the goods and services in exchange for that money. It's like worrying about the brand of oil in the engine instead of making sure the engine works. It's absurd.
Coming back to your comment about deficits always being bad, I have to wonder. With that blanket statement, you have asserted that balancing the budget (in a non-gold standard environment) was important than defeating fascism. You've declared that FDR's spending prior to 1937 was wrong, though I wonder what you'd think of the severe recession that happened after he did balance the budget in 1937. That one alone should give you pause. It should be clear that supporting effective demand is far more important, for a democratic government, than worrying about overhyped accounting.
