Numbers I posted are federal total direct revenue (that is...tax receipts). Where I wrote billions was meant to be trillions. Your numbers are not federal tax receipts.

Buckman. Curious as to source of numbers...
Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

good chart. look at the deficit numbers in the far right for the last 3 years. thats insane

Also, interesting that the projected deficit over all of the next five years are a small percenter of gdp than 1982-1988. I wonder if those numbers are based on extension or ending of Bush tax cuts. Outlays as a percent of gdp are right in line with those Reagan years too.

Not comparing them to now, but how about 1943? I had no idea how much we were spending during the war.

I will find it for you. The figure is based on all revenue. Not on just
tax revenue.

Your numbers aren't federal receipts/revenues. They also aren't "all revenue" for the federal government. The revenue of the federal government is what is in the data table. Whatever the numbers you posted are, they have mislead you. No matter how it is spun, federal tax rates are pretty much as low as they have been in 60 or 70 years. As a result of the recession, fed revenues dropped.

Where did you get the quote from anyways? It seems like it has been altered?

You are right. My numbers are total government revenue which includes state and local. All the same to me.

Here is the site.
Government Revenue Details: Federal State Local for 2008 - Charts

Not sure how you come up with the 60/70 year thing though

If boobs were brains Pelosi would belong to MENSA.

This graph shows taxes relative to gdp, which is one of the clearest ways to compare year to year, decade to decade. Blue is fed tax, red state, green business. There are many ways it can be compared, from total tax burden to effective rates. They all come out pretty much the same. Any honest comparison shows that taxes are effectively on the low end of where they have been since 1940. The gdp graph can't give you specific tax rates though. For example, taxes are lower now than they were a couple years ago, but as a percent of gdp, they are a slightly higher percent due to a decrease in gdp from the recession. This website has a whole pile of graphs, which give a pretty good overview of past values and projections of the near future. The analysis of the data is somewhat biased though, and makes a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be true.
THE HISTORY OF TAXES: Here's How High Today's Rates Really Are - Business Insider

The website you linked shows total revenue in 2007 at 5.2 trillion. Each year since then has been lower. Based on trickle down economics and conservative dogma, revenues should have increased after the Bush tax cuts.

Why, you think she has a nice rack? :yak5:

Thanks Zimmy

Don't need to read a chart to know that raising taxes
would mean more Govt. growth, like adding another 147,000
Govt. jobs since stimulus.

Cut current Govt. 10% across the board and use tax increase
to pay down the debt only, and I have no problem with it.

After 3+ years we still don't have a budget. Imagine a household
or business without a budget? Simple, ya can't spend more than you have
without going broke.

Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery. In spirit, you are right though that the business of cutting taxes and increasing spending at the same time, as was done in the 2000's, is terrible for short term and long term economy.

Absolutely the antithesis of what an economist would recommend in times of recession or early in a recovery.

No she wouldn't.Her rack is nonexistent.

If being stupid and a talking head were brains then you might have an argument for MENSA membership!

First thing would be to have a budget.

Second,cutting 10% across the board could be done on waste alone.

Third, expanding Govt. which involved hiring 147,000 new Govt. workers, where taxpayers have to pay for salaries, benefits and retirement, for a bunch of people who's job it is to spend more tax payer money doesn't make short or long term sense.

being Sunday i call for an AMEN

:fight::fight::rumble:

Do you know what that 147,000 actually means? Is it new jobs that require new workers? Is it someone left the post office and a new person was hired, someone retired from the foreign service and a replacement was hired? There is so much assumption and misinformation spread that the truth is almost never the way things are presented. I would bet you $10,000 :biglaugh: that there is no way the government was expanded to add 147,000 new jobs. That sounds totally like the biased lame stream right wing media misinformation machine :uhuh: I will look into it, but I am guessing you were duped.

Here is a start, but this is from a year ago. As I suspected, though.

"House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) claimed this morning at a press conference that "under President Obama, the federal government has added 200,000 new federal jobs." That's at least a 344 percent overstatement. In reality, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show the federal workforce has grown by only 58,000 jobs since Obama took office (and by just 25,000 jobs since his economic policies began to impact the economy). Furthermore, Boehner's implication that government workers are thriving in a recession does not jibe with the larger picture. While the private sector has added 381,000 net jobs since Obama policies took effect, overall government employment has fallen by 309,000 jobs over the same period."

Speaker Boehner Is Wrong About "200,000 New Federal Jobs" In Obama Era | Political Correction

here is some more. Your number is reasonably close to that range, but the part about the jobs being to spend tax payers money doesn't really seem to coincide with h-s, justice, veterans and defense.

"Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.
Much of the hiring increases came in the departments of homeland security, justice, veterans and defense.
The federal payroll has been expanding since President Bush took office, after declining during the Clinton administration. But it's still a tad smaller than it was in 1992, said Craig Jennings, a federal budget expert at the progressive think tank OMB Watch."

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012

LOL, as you use a year + old article by Political Correctness, the arm of the
left wing progressive Media Matters.

The CNN article said the Fed employment increase was not from
Obama alone, I never said that.

Right now the latest offical Dept of Labor statistics only go to 2010.
We will have to see what the true # is when 2011 is posted.

I pointed out it was a year ago, but it demonstrates the lies that confuse people. Boehner says 200000, and some people believe it without questioning it. The point was that it was a lie 3 times over. Where did you get your numbers? What do they mean? What are the jobs they are talking about? Are you upset with increases in homeland security and defense jobs? You said 145000 jobs created designed to spend taxpayer money. Perception and lies fool a lot of people.

The #s you quoted were 130,000, I said 147,000 which makes sense as the Dept of Labor Statistics only go to 2010 and like I said no one will know the true # until they post the 2011 #s. No problem with Military or Homeland security increases.
The #'s are both an indication of a growing and larger Govt and all it's ramifications.
All the boards I ever served on looked to spend all their $ before the fiscal year
was out to at least keep their current budget or get more $$. Can't be any different
with the Govt. and thus part of the waste. A 10% cut in spending is not unreasonable.

Yeah, I am going to leave it at that I am going to question the validity of your comment that 147,000 jobs created for people who's job it is to spend tax payer money. There is no information that backs the accuracy of that comment. Whether it is 123,000 that I posted or 147,000. Cutting 10% is a different question. There is no way to do that without cutting medicare and social security. 10% is an enormous amount of money, but I am not opposed to it in principal.

Yes this is one thing we can agree upon.
It happens on both sides of the isle and one of the
main reasons we are in the fix we are in.
There are very few politicians doing what they are elected to do,
serve the American people and not themselves.
Service, character, honesty and integrity are sorely lacking.

You are right there
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just my 2 cents on the Government Jobs.

There was also a directive that came down a couple of years ago to get away from Government Contractors. so as Contractors were eliminated, Goverment positions were created to replace them. So a lot of the Jobs Created were actually positions that they we were paying for as contracted labor.

Good example of growing the government sector while shrinking the private sector.