US Federal Budget.

"...The appropriate level and distribution of federal taxes has long been a controversial topic. Since the 1970s, some "supply side" economists have contended that lowering taxes could stimulate economic growth to such a degree that tax revenues could rise, other factors being held constant. However, economic models and econometric analysis have found weak support for the "supply side" theory. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) summarized a variety of studies done by economists across the political spectrum that indicated tax cuts do not pay for themselves and increase deficits.[9] Studies by the CBO and the U.S. Treasury also indicated that tax cuts do not pay for themselves.[10][11][12][13] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[14]

Economist Paul Krugman wrote in 2007: "Supply side doctrine, which claimed without evidence that tax cuts would pay for themselves, never got any traction in the world of professional economic research, even among conservatives."[15] Economist Nouriel Roubini wrote in October 2010 that the Republican Party was "trapped in a belief in voodoo economics, the economic equivalent of creationism" while the Democratic administration was unwilling to improve the tax system via a carbon tax or value-added tax.[16] Warren Buffett wrote in 2003: "When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a 'break' requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole."[17] Former Comptroller General of the United States David Walker stated during January 2009: "You can't have guns, butter and tax cuts. The numbers just don't add up."[18]

Francis Fukuyama summarized these concepts: "Prior to the 1980s, conservatives were fiscally conservative— that is, they were unwilling to spend more than they collected in taxes. But Reaganomics introduced the idea that virtually any tax cut would so stimulate growth that the government would end up taking in more revenue in the end (the so-called Laffer curve). In fact, the traditional view was correct: if you cut taxes without cutting spending, you end up with a damaging deficit. Thus the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980s produced a big deficit; the Clinton tax increases of the 1990s produced a surplus; and the Bush tax cuts of the early 21st century produced an even larger deficit."[19]

Economist Bruce Bartlett wrote in 2009 that without benefit cuts in Medicare and Social Security, federal taxes would have to increase by 8.1% of GDP now and forever to cover estimated program shortfalls, while avoiding debt increases.[20] The 30-year historical average federal tax receipts are 18.4% of GDP, so this would represent a substantial increase in tax receipts as a share of GDP relative to historical levels in the United States. However, such an increase would still leave tax revenues relative to GDP substantially lower than other developed nations like France and Germany (see: List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP)..."



This is a must read for those of you interested in understanding the US Federal Budget and how it works. Yes it's a Wiki article and its long, but def gives you a better understanding of how this government operates economically and financially.

Click here for the article.