Talk:United States federal budget

message: The FY2008 proposal has been made, if anyone wants to dive in. -- Beland 13:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A question I can answer! Because like all good accounting sheets, expenditures=revenues! That is because (see below) we are borrowing money from the Chinese! So a statement of revenue it wouldn't be very enlightening, officially. You probably mean before borrowing. Ah. Another story. Student7 (talk) 02:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2008

message: While the article preserves the fiction that people "save up" money in Medicare, Medicade and Social Security, the truth is that any money that is received is spent immediately. This has resulted in massive borrowing from China, of all places. As the baby boomers retire it will get much worse. Ignored officially and I suppose therefore echoed in the article is the fact (see US News and World Report page 64, Feb 18, 2008), entitlements ignored in the article are currently taking up 40% of the budget. This is expected to hit 70% in 2030. Let's hope the Chinese cooperate!   :) Instead, candidates are talking about expanded medical insurance when the government is currently going bust on what little is available. Too bad it's too taboo to mention here. Student7 (talk) 02:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reliable sources that have pointed out that the money that has "built up" in the trust funds is in fact IOUs from the federal government, not actual investments, and that those IOUs (federal debt) require taxes or other revenue sources to actually be paid off.  As for expanding medical insurance, please note that this is to some extent merely rearranging costs - businesses pay less, or individuals pay less, and the government pays more.  To the extent that private entities and individuals do pay less, that provides the government more "opportunity" to raise tax levels.  (But, as you point out, these kind of discussions are generally inappropriate for article talk pages; you might console yourself by noting that Wikipedia's goal is not to solve the world's problems by highlighting the most important ones, but simply to provide information on various subjects and let readers decide. I can assure you that any argument that you think is really important has in fact been mentioned somewhere in a reliable source; the challenge is to find it and add it to the appropriate article.)  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 15:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Student7 says "preserves the fiction" concerning the three trust funds.   It's not fiction!  Taking Social Security as an example, Trust Fund FAQs - Social Security www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/fundFAQ.html makes it clear that the Social Security Trust Fund (containing the surplus of payroll taxes collected through the years plus past interest earned minus benefits paid) are invested in U.S. government treasury bonds.  The trust fund is real just like a privately held trust fund (like for one's children) invested in such bonds. The SS trust fund contains about $2.5 trillion in 2012. It's pretty obvious that the federal government would have had to have sold an additional $2.5 trillion worth of bonds to other bond purchasers (possibly including Chinese) if the SS Trust fund hadn't invested it's trust fund in these bonds. So the federal government is paying interest to the SS trust fund--but the government was going to pay interest for those $2.5 trillion bonds to some bond holder anyway.  I think the federal budget article should leave the reader understanding the above.  I also think that the Social Security financial situation is best understood if it is looked at first as the separate entity that it is. Jhaasen (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untouched federal insurance

message: The changes recently have been good. Wikipedia reports best when it reports the past. Wikipedia is a little weak when it comes to reporting the future. I realize that the editor was quoting from a supposed reputable source here, but I would prefer that debt be predicted (chancey being the future anyway) by year rather than collecting a bunch of arbitrary years together and saying that the debt would be thus over a huge number of years which the media and opposition parties do on a regular basis to make their POV. I suggest we not contribute to anyone else's pov. Just find an annual predicted debt and go with that. The collection over years is done merely for the purpose of exaggerating the facts. 
BTW I have a clipping from the 60s proving conclusively that the US would "go broke" in 20 years, whatever that meant then. (Maybe we did but the sky didn't fall quite as hard as the columnist had intended with his article). Student7 (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's reasonable to discuss projections for the near future - the next five years or so, for example. Beyond that, much less so.  It's still good to have citations to articles which do discuss long-term trends; then the reader can decide on credibility him/herself.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 15:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on a monthly budget myself. The government is on an annual budget. Budget have meaning over one year, but none over a cycle longer than one year. The only reason for using more than one year IMO is to hype something. I don't think this should be a forum for media-type hyping. Student7 (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't decide what isn't newsworthy; that would be a form of censorship. And I disagree with you - it's useful to project revenues and expenditures over the next few years, and see the extent of the resulting deficits (or, occasionally, surpluses).  (Nor is it true that the government is on the same sort of annual budget as you are - the government has the ability to sell bonds to fund its deficit; you don't.)  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 21:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The government is not on a five-year budget. To claim that it is, is POV, which the media definitely has. It is not true that everything has to be quoted because it is in a newspaper someplace. And it is not censorship to ignore blatant pov viewpoints. That has been debated already. I'm not sure it is relevant. That is that a fifty or one hundred year obligation or deficiency is relevant to a discussion of a government that budgets year by year. Student7 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gents, an interesting discussion.  Understand that these points of view were expressed by government agencies - Treasury, GAO, and CBO.  Only Treasury could be argued to be partisan. The choice of wording by these agencies is very blunt.  I think Student7 would have a stronger argument for the articles on the one year budgets (e.g. 2007, 2008, 2009) but here in an overall article on the budget the various past and future considerations should be present.  Clearly, there is a school of thought that "debt doesn't matter" (and they often use debt to GDP as their argument) but that argument is repudiated by the sources above.  If credible "debt doesn't matter" sources can be cited, that would balance these.  But the Treasury, GAO and CBO points are legitimate to include, as they are from among the most credible sources.Farcaster (talk) 23:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Another thought, based on the above ideas, is to report both, explaining that one seems to understate it and why and the other to overstate it and why. That is, not so much to give figures to either one, but to report on the reporting of figures which is political whichever way you look at it. My thought is there is a subsection addressing the pov reporting (both ways). My blunt words here are obviously pov in themselves and references have to be found to pretty them up. Maybe not so hard since someone seems to have a grip on both arguments. Student7 (talk) 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Future reporting of debt

message: I thought I'd start a new section - my sense is that we're trying to put too much into this article. An article on the U.S. deficit or U.S. federal deficit or U.S. budget projections  or similar would, in my opinion, be an appropriate place to discuss what is frequently discussed in the press - for example, will deficits increase as a percentage of the GDP? Can the federal government continue to borrow more and more and still have top-rated debt? 
This article, by contrast, is lacking such things as a discussion of the pros and cons of a unified budget (at one time, Social Security was NOT part of the main federal budget), and much more discussion on having a separate capital budget (which has been repeatedly recommended by the Government Accountability Office.  Nor is there any discussion of how long the a full budget cycle is - for example, in the Department of Defense, initial requests for capital expenditures begin several years before the budget goes to Congress for its review.  Or a discussion of "lame duck" budgets.  Nor would you know, from reading this article, that Congress rarely passes the budget by the deadline of 1 October (and, in fact, that Congress adjourned at the end of 2006 [early 2007?] without having passed most departmental budgets at all, leaving it up to the next Congress to deal with the problem).  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 04:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future deficits - separate article 

message: Can someone help me out with this.  The interest in the pie chart at the top ($237B) is interest on the public debt.  How is the $100 billion or so in Social Security interest accounted for?  Is it part of the Social Security expense ($581B)?  Can someone point me to a source that explains this?  Seems like interest should be a lot higher, as 237B/9.7T = 2.5%, not as much as t-bill interest rates...Thanks.Farcaster (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Treatment of Social Security interest

message: The graph "Annual U.S. spending 1934-2006 with adjustment for inflation" needs a per capita counterpart.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.188.96 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Per capita data

message: There seems to be a common belief that entitlements are primarily for, and consumed by, 65+ senior citizens. I've found some data indicating nearly 1/2 of the people on medicaid/medicare are low income children, their mothers, and the disabled. I think it would be informative to add age, sex and disability status of the entitlement consumers to clearly show where the money is spent. This kaiser page shows about 75 million people on medicare/medicaid, while this page shows around 38 million 65+ residents living in the USA. This implies around 37 million consumers of medicare/medicaid are under 65. Perhaps many of the people using Social Security benefits are similarly under 65? The distribution of entitlements by age, sex and disability would be an interesting topic to explore. 71.105.206.164 (talk) 08:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Entitlement Consumer Statistics

message: Here is a (http://www.usdebtclock.org) budget presentation] which cannot be used here, but it is, nonetheless, interesting. I could not execute this out of Wikipedia on my first attempt, but it did later. A future Wikipedia might pipe WP:RELY figures into a simulator from different "articles" and proceed from there to simulate everything. The current presentation of facts will need to change someday. Student7 (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Interesting presentation

message: The pie chart that is highlighted at the top of the page needs to be changed to reflect true "defense" spending.  At the bottom of the chart it says that $188 Billion or about 1/3 of the defense budget is left off of the chart.  This DRASTICALLY changes the chart.  I'm not even going to quibble over adding nuclear weapons spending into the defense numbers and things like that but when the chart itself notes that 1/3 of the main category of spending is purposely left off there is a big problem 97.91.185.121 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's due for an update to 2011 data anyway. I'll work on it over the next week. Bear in mind the pie chart is how the budget was presented, with the defense spending off the budget as a supplemental at the time. I think it's all on budget now. Thanks for your observation.Farcaster (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated with 2009FY data.Farcaster (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Is it really honest to sneak DHS spending under "Defense" spending?  I also am of the opinion that Service on the Debt should probably be broken out.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.219.35 (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pie Chart 

message: As I began to read about the 2010-20 budget projections, I was curious as to how good (read: bad) the forecasts might be. So, I took the last Clinton budget, issued at the beginning of 2000 that covered 2000-10, and compared it to what actually happened over 10 years (i.e., 2000-09). The nominal GDP forecast was 95% accurate (4.5% p.a. forecast, vs. 4.3% actual), but the $2.3 trillion surplus turned into a $3.8 trillion deficit. Maybe President Obama’s deficits will turn into surpluses, too. . .  DOR (HK) (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget forecast accuracy? 

message: I accessed this page looking for simple objective answers to simple questions.  Instead I see non-objective philiosophizing with a right-wing slant.  (Here's an example: "These on-budget and off-budget items essentially amount to accounting gimmicks and schemes. In reality, what really matters is how much money comes in and how much money goes out."  Preserving a SocSec surplus for the next generation may or may not be useful in accounting, but it isn't a "gimmick" and whoever wrote the excerpted sentence certainly isn't qualified to say "what really matters.") This is not what Wikipedia is about. Jamesdowallen (talk) 06:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point James.  I didn't want to remove the entire section, so I took out the offending verbiage.Farcaster (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Conservative poppycock

message: This article does a fairly good job of describing mandatory and military funding, but I'd like to see more coverage of non-defense discretionary funding, which isn't covered anywhere near as extensively in this article.  There is currently some discussion of it in United States budget process.  I think this is an important part of the budget to cover, especially given the coming debate about the Republican plan to sharply cut discretionary funding levels.  Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 06:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Section started.Farcaster (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More coverage of discretionary funding 

message: The 2007 projected spending graph is seriously out of date. For these last two years Obama/Congress massively increased the deficit and thus much higher future debt and interest rates. 
See: Total Revenues & Outlays. Congressional Budget Office 2011 Feb. 15th Graph Page 5 
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/SummaryforWeb.pdf
The House Budget Committee April 5, 2011 graphs both Democrat and Republican budgets. 
http://budget.house.gov/fy2012budget/
See graph: Choice of Two Futures, (Debt as a share of the economy)
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedPhotos/highresolution/52d9f5db-dced-4e5b-b908-f2a7f3cddb08.jpg
Published on page 8, Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution, House Committee on the Budget 
http://paulryan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
Start with this. Add an equivalent showing the integrated cumulative debt & interest.DLH (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory spending and entitlements 

message: I have two problems with the inclusion of "net interest" on the risks of entitlements graphic. 
1) Net interest is the result of the general budget deficit. This would be appropriate to a graphic showing the risks of deficit spending of which entitlements are only part and since most of them are independently funded and currently solvent they should show NO current net interest.
2) Projections such as these rely upon no corrective measures being taken in expenditures or revenue. Given that there was a major revision in the 80's in social security which extended its budget surplus by decades I think graphics such as this should be relabeled to clearly indicate that they reflect projections given current policy and trends. 
I am not well qualified in this subject and will not attempt to modify the graph myself but I would like these issues addressed. I apologize if I have missed something obvious.
Michalchik (talk) 08:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is does the risks of entitlement spending have "net interest" as part of it? 

message: The chart shows the budget amount in nominal dollars rather than real dollars. In case anyone reading this isn't sure what I mean, nominal dollars is the number that was actually budgeted, but a dollar now is worth less than dollar 20 years ago (because products were cheaper, inflation happens.) Therefore a 3 trillion dollar budget now is maybe equal to a 1 trillion dollar budget in the 90s. Checking this is relatively simple as well. Just find out what the CPI is and make the corrections.
I would but I can't change pictures out because I'm not ranked highly enough (relatively new at wikipedia)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrone.grandstrand (talk • contribs) 05:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Budget Amount Chart (problems) 

message: I deleted this section, subject to someone rewriting it from scratch, if they feel they have something informative to contribute on the subject of tax policy.
Rather than a discussion of tax policy and a NPOV description of differing theories, it consisted of flip-flop, contradictory, finger-pointing POV opinions on econoomic theory - with each side of the argument stating why their preferred tax policy is right.  It did little to inform the reader about tax policy.
WP should strive to inform, not to pursuade.John2510 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I could go out and find quotes that make the other side of the argument.  However, That presents two problems:  1) this would turn into a debate about which of our sources are more right, more respected, more objective, etc. (BTW, I'm not aware of Warren Buffett being a credible expert on tax policy); 2) More important, the article should not be a debate, balanced or otherwise, about which tax policy is the "correct" one.  It should be encyclopedic.  If there is something to say about "tax policy" as a subject within the context of the article, then the section should be rewritten to reflect that.  If there isn't, it should be deleted.  John2510 (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with you on slimming down the quotes in favor of some more data-type factual information or historical perspective. Let me chew on your thoughts if you don't plan to add directly and we'll get something we can both live with.Farcaster (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll hold off on doing anything with it for a while.  I think it would help achieve a better section/article if the focus is on explaining tax policy generally in a NPOV manner, rather than simply removing the quotes in favor of numbers that some may feel prove the rightness or wrongness of a particular policy.  If you think it's necessary to include aspects of conflicting viewpoints, it might be appropriate to phrase it something like, "Supply-side economists contend that excessive taxation and regulation ... while critics note that...." Using the current quote sources as end-notes would certainly be appropriate. Of course, that's only one conflict on a particular aspect of tax policy... not an entry on tax policy as a topic.  I stumbled on the article out of personal educational interest and noticed how one-sided and argumentative certain portions of it were... and that they didn't read very encyclopedic.  I think when we believe something strongly, it's tempting to let articles stray into arguments for our position, and I fear some of that has gone on here.  John2510 (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The new structure is an improvement, and I appreciate your efforts.  I think the section on supply-side theory is still rather POV, but at least it's placed in a section where it more clearly is identified as an argument, and the "tax policy" section truly addresses tax policy as a general topic.  Thanks.  John2510 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tax Policy" section deleted 

message: The graphic illustrated the Social Security "Worker to Beneficiary Ratio" shows the reverse of the graphic title. As is, the graphic implies that in 1960, one worker supported five beneficiaries, and that this ratio has -improved- since that period. The idea could be helpful to illustrate, but as it stands, confuses the reader. The issue was mentioned by someone else under the discussion section of the graphic itself.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asterids (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. The numbers show the actual ratio, the graphic shows the workers holding up the retiree.Farcaster (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Security "Worker to Beneficiary Ratio" graphic 

message: Currently the USA has about 2M Federal employees. However, the USA annual expenditures (budget) results in a large number of additional employment and contractors jobs. Total employees available in the USA is currently about 153M with about 139M currently employed (accounting for the 9% unemployment figure), according to the BLS. It would be a great addition to show how number of Federal employees and additional employees/contractors has grown over the past 30 years as a function of the growth in the Federal Budget. And also how this figure has changed (% wise) compared to the total workforce.
PS great job on the USA Federal Budget article
Signed: zhank98  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhank98 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  employment due to federal budget 

message: you guys do fantastic job making this issue clear and comprehensible- as always from wp. You're doing a much better job than most of the msm as i'm sure you realize. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: great article

message: None of the graphics for this article have been updated since 2009. THE ISSUE with regard to the U.S. federal budget these days is the deficit, which has swollen to over $1.5 trillion, and our graphs don't show that. Why?
Is there a TWO-YEAR lag time for producing graphical representations of budget trends? Is there a federally-mandated waiting period for loaded graphs? Are we trying to let on as if NO ONE on this board has taken even the merest look at spending trends for TWO YEARS??!!
We are looking like assholes here, kids. I'm sorry if the hockey-stick graph that is GOING to result from extending things to 2011 displeases a lot of us. But it is what it is, people.
This is exactly the sort of crap that keeps us on the periphery when it comes to widespread mainstream acceptance of Wikipedia as a legitimate source of information.
Tbone0106 (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the graphs are updated through 2010, the last historical year of data available. The deficit was roughly the same size then. The Bank of Montreal just did a presentation at a major industry conference that included the first two pie graphs taken directly from here, which goes to credibility. We are not yet done with FY 2011, which ends September 30; there will be lags of several months beyond that until that final data is available.  Several of the older graphs are there to illustrate a point and may or may not benefit from update. Please feel free to pitch in but uninformed insults aren't much help.Farcaster (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we running a risk here? Are we showing political petticoats? 

message: This article was about three times as long as the guideline in WP:ARTICLESIZE, so I split out two new articles from this one: Political debates about the United States federal budget and Deficit reduction in the United States.  Feel free to change the titles of either of these articles if you can think of anything better.  There are still broken references in the three articles which need to be restored.  Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 08:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split articles 

message: Here is the premise of the solution proposed:
1. Given the right incentive the upper 1-2% of the Population can invest in a Deficit pay back fund and ZERO(0) out the deficit 
   The USA would owe no money period.
2. That incentive must be great. Here is the incentive for each share owned by a person and a person only 
   full Income Tax and Capital Gains tax exemption status would be given 3 years after the purchase of one or more shares in the fund +
   an equal share in all surplus tax revenue received by the US Federal government.
3. The 3 years is a suggested sync up time allowing a combination of GDP growth/ Federal Budget Shrinking over the that period and or 
   additional VAT tax to be applied on non-essential(medications, medical costs, Food, Shelter and clothing)  goods and services
   The VAT tax is just on the table here in the proposed plan.
------
Here Is the 15.3 Trillion Deficit Solution I Propose
'''
(assuming it has not grown since the last figure I recorded here):
The US Government floats a special 15.3 Trillion dollar bond-fund and pays off the total debt outstanding. 
Every share sold starts at 15.3 million USD. There would exist 1,000,000 (1 Million shares). 
15.3 * 10^6  * (1 * 10^6)  = 15.3 * 10^12  dollars which according to my math pays off the total long term debt.
 
For Investor Incentive:
For each single share an investor owned the would be investor gains in future years of (income tax and capital gains) exemption + (surplus Tax Revenue/1 million shares) as long as the fund is not called/discontinued due to repayment based on (exempted lost tax revenue) + surplus tax revenue distribution 
( That is all tax revenue not spent by the USA Federal Government divided by 1 million shares)  would be the pay-off per share.
All it takes is 1,000,000 shares at 15.3 Million a share to pay off the deficit in one shot. I am suggesting that an individual must own one or more shares to be granted tax free status (Note they would still pay property and sales tax as well as estate tax and all other taxes) and buying and selling of these shares is permissible as well. Note the tax free exemption follows in future years only so the year the share is purchased there is no tax exemption permitted. 
The number of future years could be programmable as the fund is initially created. E.G Maybe 3 years maybe 1 year. The reason for this would be to allow sufficient time to stabilize and reduce the government budget spending and raise the GDP and tax revenue which should take time to calibrate. 
Now this deficit fund idea can be created at a smaller city and state level as well and scaled as well for that purpose.
The government part in this would guarantee 200 billion in tax revenue surplus as this figure 
currently used now to pay off principal and interest on the US deficit because that was what is being paid now approximately. 
I see climbing GDP as a result of such a fund unseen in the history of the USA. The fund will immediately
pay off the US Deficit and the shares would be trade-able as well. The fund like any bond would be callable with a guaranteed pay off of
20% return on investment - The figure could be adjusted. 
Here are the expected benefits to all US citizens:
(1) No Federal Deficit at all to complain about!
(2) A better way to manage future federal budget expenses and inflation
(3) Almost guaranteed economic growth since credit will be wide open.
Negatives:
     Only one tax exemptions used to pay back the investors
     Guaranteed that there will be no tax surplus after the fund holder receive it for the time it takes to pay them back
     Potentially lower tax revenue from  299 million people will be paying the taxes for 300 million with no federal deficit
     The Current investors in USA Federal debt will lose their growing 200+ billion in yearly income
As part of this idea there would be a created voting website with phone/web access to a referendum 
identified potential wasteful spending of government budget money by the a group of auditors managed by the fund holders or their proxy and
concerned citizens who can identify certain perceived wasteful government expenses with access for each quarter government expenses.
with vote options like:
Keep | Defer to next year |Eliminate completely 
and the identified expenses would be selected based on importance and relevance to the citizenship.
Any item eliminated could then be put into a pool of unsupported government expenses allowing private ownership if feasible of those expenses
e.g a bridge in Alaska that a certain governor decided not to build. Allow a private owner of said bridge instead free to charge their own tolls.
Obviously you can not have  strategic defense expenses on the chopping block e.g  upkeep of Nuclear missile silos in Montana for example.
but you can pin point subsidies to oil industry, banking industry and others questionable spending practices.
Perhaps you could say no to Oil production subsidies or defer such spending measures etc.. Either way good budget money is shrank and it is possible
to finally get a handle on all government expenses.
Please comment on this idea. No one has commented. This all makes a great deal of sense does it not?
How about some real feedback here. There must be someone who would take this idea and make it really work. I know what will work and what won't
This will work. Instead of taxing the rich which never works. This makes the rich richer along with everyone else and controls or puts a throttle
on government spending in a meaningful way.
Finally link spending to real GDP(Gross Domestic Product).
SEND ME FEED BACK - ATTACK IT - SHOW ME IT FAILS - I DO NOT SEE WHERE IT FAILS - This should solve the whole world's economic problems if applied
Rss245x (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTSOAPBOX -- John of Reading (talk) 08:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essay 

message: Is this a good indicator?
A company in a bad year can go out of business so that it and its employees are no longer paying taxes.  But the company's product can still be in the pipeline sold on store shelves adding to GDP.  In fact, the company doesn't even have to go out of business.  They might gut their profits and tighten their belt with layoff for a meager 10% drop in retail prices.  In which case the impact to tax revenue outstrips the short term impact to GDP.  In economic hard times, the loss of revenue is almost immediate while the loss in GDP lags behind.  These two indicators manifest on different timescales.
:Yes. The article seems structured around GDP. I don't mind one subsection that describes debt and expenditures as a function of GDP, but structuring the article around it almost entirely seems WP:UNDUE. As if when I went to the bank, I described my request for a loan as a percentage of my annual income. This is useful for both the bank and myself. But the bottom line should come down to real money, in dollars, at some point in time. And my "future" expectations of income may be a pipe dream. The bank tries to take that into consideration when it determines the amount I receive and the interest I pay. The federal government doesn't seem to have to worry about such things, since it prints it's own money and buys its own bonds! 
:GDP discussion should be confined to one major subsection IMO. The rest should confine itself to money either in today's dollars or the dollars of the time. 
:And a history subsection is needed as well to discuss past budgets instead of having them slop over into the other subsections. All articles are supposed to describe the current situation. Except for the past few years, the rest should under "History." Student7 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually revenue, expense and deficits relative to GDP are more important than the $ figure, as GDP is continually rising along with the population.  The historical patterns relative to GDP make each year's numbers comparable and meaningful.  That is why CBO presents the numbers and % GDP in its historical tables with equal prominence. Debt relative to GDP is also more meaningful than the actual number.Farcaster (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revenue as % of GDP 

message: Many informations of this article are very old (2009). Where is the update?.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.222.79 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  where is the update? 2009-->2012 

message: The link to historical budget data from CBO in footnote 93 of this version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_federal_budget&oldid=494370110 is broken.
(I don't know the correct link; feel free to delete this when fixing the link of course.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.221.102.233 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: I've started a centralised discussion  regarding :File:Employment growth by top tax rate.jpg, which is used in this article. Gabbe (talk) 09:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employment growth by top tax rate image 

message: The primary source document for the president's proposal is at . I like the very high level summary at . However, the table at  may be the most useful for Wikipedia articles. EllenCT (talk) 21:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  President's proposal, NPP comparison table 

message: Having tested the waters (above), I believe that trying to insert a "History" subsection to an article that almost screams for it, will prove unproductive. Like an article on Presidents Reagan or Roosevelt starting when they assumed the Presidency and conveniently "forgetting" everything else! What is past is not prologue here, it is simply lost through a case of rather deliberate amnesia. 
In 1965, federal spending increased each year for 44 years (regardless of revenue). Congress cut spending from 2011 through 2013, from $3.60 trillion to $3.54 trillion. (While I have a citation, it does not cover 2009-2011). Actually there are probably hundreds of citations. But WP:RS won't help if editors won't allow history. Student7 (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: My remarks here are general, not specific to this page.
Like many, I come to Wikipedia looking for quick summary information.  All too often what was once easy to find here becomes difficult.  Doubtless someone had a reorganization plan which seemed intelligent in isolation, but confounded the purpose of many ordinary users.
Today I come to Wikipedia looking for a simple table showing U.S. deficits by year.  That's all -- simple enough, right?  I'm not an ignoramus; I've pored over detialed U.S. budgets; I've read lots of articles; etc.  Today I just want a simple deficit chart.  AND AFTER A FEW MINUTES I CAN'T FIND IT here.  Click Click Click -- all I get is LOTS and LOTS of text, long articles, no table.
Oh, I'm sure the table's here somewhere, but after click-click-click-clicking and not finding it, I'll decide to look elsewhere.  Unfortunately this may lead to less reliable numbers, BUT USING WIKIPEDIA has BECOME TOO TEDIOUS when areas have been "reorganized intelligently" -- LOL.
I'm not logged in, but I am Wikipedia user jamesdowallen.  I once tried to make contributions to Wikipedia but became frustrated -- work would go down the drain if another user imposed his view.  I hope Wiki editors will read this, ignore my momentary irritation, and try to grasp my underlying message.  (PS.  On preview I see I've Talked here before!  "Conservative poppycock")
Thank you.  Jamesdowallen  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.77.159.217 (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we could use a table with some of the key statistics.  CBO just published their budget & economic outlook.  You can find such tables easily in the budget chapter or hit the historical information link to download spreadsheets with all the data. Here:CBO - Budget & Economic Outlook-2015Farcaster (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Organization 

message: The Social Security tax is regressive, not flat, the rate goes to zero above the cap.
The Medicare tax is progressive, however, the added percentage at incomes over 200000 is far less than the percentage decrease in Social Security tax above the cap.
Thus in total, the FICA taxes are not progressive, the Social Security tax is not flat, and they should not be described as such.
:Correction made, thanks. Farcaster (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is FICA tax really progressive? 

message: It may be helpful to readers if the fiscal year dates are completely written out besides only writing it starts October 1st. It could be noted that the fiscal year is October 1-September 31. Perhaps explaining a little more about the fiscal year such as it is named for which the year it ends not the year it is proposed in (a common misconception). Maybe a little of a history overview of how the United States budget got to how it is (development and spending). Including acts such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment and Control Act of 1974 because of it's significance in creating the Congressional Budget Office and the Accounting act of 1950 which made it to where spending had to be divided into function and super-function spending. Mentioning that the only constitutional requirement when it comes to the debt is mentioning that interest on the federal debt is the only constitutional required budget provision that must be met. 
Johnnyq79 (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Evaluation

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States federal budget. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110612163335/http://www.americanprogress.org:80/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html to http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/06/low_tax.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100807003426/http://www.jct.gov:80/s-2-08.pdf to http://www.jct.gov/s-2-08.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100228030136/http://www.defense.gov/news/FY10%20Budget%20Request.pdf to http://www.defense.gov/news/FY10%20Budget%20Request.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111003030146/http://www.cbo.gov:80/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12419/CBO_Presentation_to_Macroeconomic_Advisers_9-14-11_Final.pdf to http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/124xx/doc12419/CBO_Presentation_to_Macroeconomic_Advisers_9-14-11_Final.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120816235327/http://bipartisanpolicy.org:80/blog/2012/03/paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-fiscal-year-2013-budget-details to http://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2012/03/paul-ryan%E2%80%99s-fiscal-year-2013-budget-details
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110910171310/http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/projects/debt-initiative/about to http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/projects/debt-initiative/about
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120214182222/http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2106790,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2106790,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: WHY doesn't the article state, in simple numbers, HOW MUCH the Federal budget is???  How many dollars and how many cents???   Very bad, frustrating omission.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: HOW MUCH is it???

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States federal budget. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140621114021/http://www.buildabetterbudget.org/ to http://www.buildabetterbudget.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :United States federal budget's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "CBO_Senate1":
From Economic policy of Donald Trump: 
From Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017: CBO-Reconciliation Recommendations of the Senate Committee on Finance-November 26, 2017
Reference named "JCT_Econ1":
From Economic policy of Donald Trump: 
From Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017: Joint Committee on Taxation-Macroeconomic analysis of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act-November 30,2017
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:United States federal budget]] 

message: I'm both surprised and disappointed that there is not a section of this article or a link to another article to cover the history of the US federal budget.  Sure, there's a lot of historical info here, but it's scattered and disorganized.  I came here just thinking I was seconds away from finding the year in which the federal budget first reached $1 billion (as I remember clearly when it first hit $1 trillion).  I thought there'd at least be a graph showing the growth of the budget since 1789.  Did I miss it somewhere? Unschool 23:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The billion dollar figure will be prior to post-WWII statistical standards; $100 billion mark was first reached in 1961 for spending, 1962 for revenues.DOR (HK) (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Under Risks associated with the debt, we cite the CBO's 2010 paper saying (a) more savings would go to the purchase of government debt, rather than investments in productive capital; (b) rising interest costs would force reductions in other spending; (c) increasing marginal tax rates would discourage work and savings; (d) policymakers would have fewer tools with which to respond to new challenges; and (e) the risk of sudden fiscal pressure forcing higher interest rates would increase. 
We then say exactly none of these occurred in the following decade, so perhaps this section could be deleted? DOR (HK) (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: (a) might have happened, as we have no way to know the counter-factual. (d) and (e) might also be the case, and (c) is currently being proposed in terms of higher corporate tax rates and capital gains rates.  But this section should certainly be updated, perhaps with reference to the 2021 CBO Long-Term Budget Outlook.Barnhorst (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad. I had no idea that "might have happened" was considered to be a reliable source. What in the world ... ? DOR (HK) (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risks