Simple explanation of the US Budget
 

This should help simplify it

US Tax Revenue : $2,170,000,000,000
Fed Budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000

Now, remove 8 0's from each line and pretend it is a family budget so we can all understand

Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding credit card balance: $142,710
Total budget cut some politicians take pride in : $385

Are you kidding me ? Stop this insanity and vote these big spenders out, they are stealing from your children and grandchildren.

:popcorn:

Good example.

Yet every day we move more jobs overseas and we bring in more products made outside the US.

SO:

We have less people working.
We export less.
We import more.

:22yikes:

Google Made in USA and you will be surprised to see how many products are still made here and therefore how many companies we can still support. The search should give numerous sites with lists of these.:coolsmiley:

Most of what we import is either oil or cheap junk from China that we can no longer afford to make cheaply since OUR workers get more in an hour than a Chinese worker gets in a couple of days.

Great Example, And...
 

...if anyone thinks that a problem of this magnitude can be solved with spending cuts alone, they need to re-visit arithmetic class.

Oh, I know the arguments against "increasing revenue"...don't tax the job creators (even though they haven't created anywhere enough new jobs)...it's "income redistribution" (even though income and wealth IS being re-distributed by current policies, from the lower and middle classes to the wealthy)...economic growth will create more revenue (even though arithmetic shows that it would take 10% annual growth in GDP for fifty years to create enough new revenue to balance the budget).

No, ultimately we'll find that this problem can't be solved without tax increases as well as deep cuts in spending. Using your example of the family budget, it means sending the wife and kids out to get a job, regardless of the effect it might have on family happiness, recreation and the like.

VK~ You are so right that along with DEEP spending cuts, the wife and kids need jobs in the scenario. Isn't it possible the the "wife and kids" are already bringing some big bucks to "tax revenue" table? I would really like to see some DEEP and SEVERE spending cuts from Washington, instead of the usual increase in government programs and spending too!

One of the recent threads on the forum was about how much money is spent in Wal-Mart and how successful that Wal-Mart is - and maybe we should have the Wal-Mart execs run the country.

Personally, I like Wal-Mart. However, look to see what percentage of their goods are made in China. It is very, very hard to find an American made product in Wal-Mart.

Don't complain about importation of goods from China and then go buy them at Wal-Mart because they are a lot cheaper than the "Mom & Pop" stores. You either pay less at Wal-Mart for foreign products or pay quite a bit more for American made at the "Mom & Pop" stores. Take your pick.

Take a good look in the Mom & Pop stores. They are also selling Chinese made products....almost everyone is.

The huge purchasing power of Walmart is the secret to their pricing structure. They also provide sellers with a huge market...Economics 101

Depends on what you want to consider "new revenue". New revenue used to mean exactly that in our English language. The creation of new monies. Now "new revenue", as defined by our administration and maybe now by you, means taking more resources from the citizens in the form of increased taxes.

Increased taxes is a very poor way to induce the creation of what is truly "new revenue". New goods and new services are the best way to increase "new revenue". Ronald Reagan proved this and he did that by decreasing taxes and gutting capital gains taxes which in due time boosted true "new revenue"

At least call it what you really mean it to be. You want to take more money from the only citizens really able to boost the private economy and give it to the government to distribute even though all their previous attempts to "grow" our economy has been a dismal failure.

Also, forcing Republicans to break their "no new taxes" pledge is a great campaign tool. Ask George H. Bush, he'll tell you all about it.

I see you're comfortable with Grover Norquist having our politicians in his pocket.

Once again, we need to recognize that NEW taxes are not what is required. It's returning to OLD taxes, which were eliminated by the Republican administrations since Reagan.

As long as we are in Afghanistan, continue a healthy, modern defense budget, continue Social Security and Medicare, and try to invest in job creation and business growth - all things we fundamentally accept - we cannot pay the bills.

This 'redistribution of wealth' boogyman is just that. The bulk of the money needed to move toward a balanced budget is sitting idle. Some banks are holding it so they can buy more banks and become megabanks. They are refusing to lend it to stimulate business growth. Many wealthy citizens are literally sitting on billions, more than they or their heirs can responsibly spend in their lifetimes. Large amount of those funds are out of the country or used to buy property and possessions out of the country. Those folks will privately and some even publicly admit their wealth has grown geometrically because of favorable tax policies.

I'm not talking about squeezing mere millionaires here, but siphoning some funds out of the hands of multi-millionaires and billionaires INTO THE ECONOMY, where the dollars will be SPENT, creating JOBS and STABILITY, which in turn causes consumer and investment CONFIDENCE. And the ball rolls...

I have no problem with the "no new taxes pledge", it that's what you're referring to. Norquist is your "red herring".

Money is sitting idle because of taxes and regulations imposed on the use of it. it's government policies that are strangling our economy and not business. Business would love to grow and prosper and would if the government got out of the way. It's government policy that drove business overseas, and now you want to expand governments grasp and think that will help? Unbelievable!!

Regulations. Another boogyman.

Please be specific. Name any regulation that in fact does more to strangle investment than to prevent unbridled greed. There are two sides to the regulation coin. It is widely accepted even by conservative economists that the single greatest cause of the financial crisis was the absence of effective regulations on mortgages and other investment scams. The reason why the 'Wall Street crooks' (my convenient global term for all of the big finance thieves), can't be effectively prosecuted today, is that most of their actions were not strictly prohibited by law. The very least we should do is to take a healthy cut of their colossal ripoffs!

Oh, and another gross generalization - far more businesses have left the country because of high labor and materials costs than because of taxes. I wish I could recall where I saw the precise study, but in a survey of executives of large corporations which relocated manufacturing out of the country, taxes and government regulation were well down on the list of reasons for those moves. I will agree that a number of corporations have opened up 'front' offices overseas to escape some corporate profits taxes, but this has had a fraction of the economic impact that the loss of jobs and production has had.

You can't have a strong country with a strong economy without a strong, flexible, smart government. I'm not suggesting our government is very smart, especially at the moment with the absurdities of the obstructionist Republican bloc in Congress. But regardless of the current nonsense, I cannot see how you can support government "out of the way". Do you honestly prefer an oligarchy of enormously wealthy CEOs running the country exactly as they wish?