Still think we have a revenue problem?

Just print 161 Billion new dollars.  Problem solved.

Make that 162.  1 Billion goes to me for the idea.

Well we do have an infinite amount of money according to Bloomberg.

“We are spending money we don’t have, It’s not like your household. In your household, people are saying, ‘Oh, you can’t spend money you don’t have.’ That is true for your household because nobody is going to lend you an infinite amount of money. When it comes to the United States federal government, people do seem willing to lend us an infinite amount of money. … Our debt is so big and so many people own it that it’s preposterous to think that they would stop selling us more. It’s the old story: If you owe the bank $50,000, you got a problem. If you owe the bank $50 million, they got a problem. And that’s a problem for the lenders. They can’t stop lending us more money.” - Bloomberg

AND you get special interest groups pushing for their agenda so greed kicks in.

I bet half the votes that go to keep/increase spending are paid for some way or another.  Someone offers to fly you to some event and wine and dine you (and maybe some other not so above board things) just to get you to vote for something you probably don't care one way or another about anyway?

What's it to most of these politicians if they get theirs?  As long as they are sitting pretty and basically recession proof, why care about the American citizens?

And THEN they vote on some hot issue (like gun control) based on what looks good to the people, and not really think about it. 

Maybe I'm too cynical. 

and that's different how? 

If I lend you $100, then you have $100 right?  Either way, it's symantecs and both are equally as bad.

You might want to step out from behind that computer once in a while.   Next thing you're going to be going down to McAfee's for a Big Mac.

oh, haha.  Spellchecker got me on that one.  semantics (I think)

Just give me 2 months and we'll be good.

according to http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

2.6in 2007 should be 2.88 trillion in 2013 just to keep up with inflation.  So yes I still think its a revenue issue. 

A work work out buddy and I agree more of a payroll issue.  high unemployment and wages stagnated or gone down for many people that part of the problem when the cost has gone up for everything else.

Sorry, but I disagree.  The last time we had a budget surplus was in FY 2001.  We took in 1.991 Trillion and spent 1.826 Trillion.  Spending represented 18.2% of GDP that year.  If you use your inflation calculator above the spending should be 2.375 Trillion in 2013.  We're a LOOOOOOOONG way from that.  Spending in FY 2102 was above 24% of GDP.  Since 1930 we've never had a surplus when outlays exceeded 19.4% of GDP.  Looking at the revenue side, inflating the 1.991T to 2013 gives a revenue estimate of 2.590 Trillion, so getting 2.7 Trillion is exceeding that.  Even worse, the debt interest payments are expected to double from roughly 6% of the budget to 12% of the budget by 2020, so a full 1/8 of all payments the gov't makes will be for paying off interest.

Source: ?http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals Tables 1.1 and 1.2

Huh? I should pay more taxes regardless of my income because gas and beer cost more?

I don't understand what the relationship of inflation to income taxes is.

This is exactly why I support accross the board cuts...everywhere!  These knuckleheads in DC will not agree to have one of their pet projects cut or reduced...so I say everyone makes a hit.  If they did it right, meaning cut 10 percent fat from their program, Americans would see little, if any effect from the cuts.  And to any agency official that claims they have no fat to trim from their budget...we all know they are full of s^#!

I agree.  Notice how SS and Medicare were spared from all the cuts.  Hmm, wonder why that was??

Because the house of cards comes down when they start messing with that.

in theory you should get a raise at least based on inflation.   So tax revenue in theory should go up with them. 

You should get a raise based on your value to the company. Inflation has no bearing on how much value you bring to a company.

I look at this way, one is a salary adjustment the other is a raise.  Depends on how your company views it's employees as to whether it's inflation based or value based.  I personally prefer the one that is value based.

On a separate note.  I'd like to see the figures on an inflation adjusted basis and compared to GDP as opposed to an aggregate number.  THAT tells me whether the revenue was the highest or not as an economic indicator.  My impression is that in the 60's it was actually higher.  That is JUST an impression though and really says absolutely NOTHING about the problem in question.

Actually inflation has a great deal of bearing on how much value you bring to the company. That is the whole concept of inflation. If you make 10 widgets for which the company makes $100 and pays you $30. If, due to inflation, next year the company makes $110 for your 10 widgets and still only pays you $30 then the value of what you produce has gone up and your pay has not increased accordingly. Did you all of a sudden become less valuable to the company?