The U.S. Government says it spent $3.46 TRILLION $$$ in 2010.
The U.S. Government says it took in $2.16 TRILLION $$$$ in 2010.
The U.S. Government says that the deficit "dipped" coming in at only $1.29 TRILLION $$$.
(The only funny thing about this is that its probably time to buy the US$... but with no patience for losses - if I am wrong, I AM GONE.)
Too many economists and members of our illustrious press (snicker!!) refer to the budget deficit in terms of its annual percentage relative to GDP. A better way might be as a percentage of revenues - nearly 60% (I guess as a percentage of expenditures is OK, too - over 37%). In other words, in order to balance the budget the U.S. Federal Government would need to cut the size of the government by 37%.
"But wait!" An economically challenged moron writing for Rolling Stone Magazine might say... "Why not just increase taxes on the rich by $1.29 TRILLION??!!" To which I would respond to the nitwit from Rolling Stone: "Per annum? You mean you think we should increase taxes by $1.29 TRILLION per annum for ever and ever??!! (never mind that you would have to increase the whole kit-and-kaboodle at some exponential growth rate because the budget does not stay static). Do you know what that means, dearest Rolling Stone Jag Off?"
The problem is this: The slapped-ass from Rolling Stone has NO IDEA. He doesn't need to know. That's the advantage of know-nothing positions.
Governments (that have their own currency like the U.S.) do not even NEED taxes. They can always print money or create deposits out of thin air. So, why go thru the pretense of taxes? There are a number of reasons... the PRIMARY reason is that taxes are a vehicle for siphoning money out of the system to control inflation/deflation (but really inflation... who would siphon money during deflation? A-hem! The U.S.). If we were to follow the Rolling Stone's clever strategy... the U.S. would remove $13 TRILLION $$$ form the money supply over the next decade - at the same time the U.S. is in the grips of a credit contraction (deflation) not seen since the 1930's (and the only thing that stopped that was WWII... don't know about you, but I want to pass on WWIII)... do those great economic minds from Greenwich Village have any idea what that means!!???!!?? Do they even have the slightest idea that tax extractions by the U.S. Federal Government over the years has averaged 18.5%, + or - 1%, of GDP since the end of WWII? And that what they are suggesting is increasing the governments take/decreasing the money supply to the tune of 10% of GDP (bringing the total takes to roughly 29%) per year, every year, for now M*ther ^%^$&ing on? Do you know what that would mean?
It would mean the end of the world.
So thanks, Rolling Stone Magazine, for continuing your propaganda effort and the farce we call the American Body Politic.... NOW F*%! Off.