Slashdot Mirror

Meanwhile in the real world most people have seen or know about a government accounting statement... 'Evil' or not: https://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/... There's your stable supply of USD there. Subtract X trillion from an infinite set. Thats a lot more stable than X CPU/GPU cycles to get a crypto commodity which is algorithmically pegged at a rising rate of change to your computers ability to 'mine' it.

Yeah, they are using a NASA ]mostly] internal CA. If you want to trust the U.S. Treasury and NASA CAs: http://pki.treas.gov/crl_certs...

The problem is you have no control where the money is spent. If you want the money spent on something constructive like roads or education but the government wants to spend it destructively on murdering foreigners there is nothing you can do.

* https://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/...

Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. /blockquote

The link you provided, doesn't make make it clear if the "Letter of Intent" is guaranteed or only a suggestion.

Are you a millionaire who feels you're undertaxed? You'll be happy to know that since 1843, the US Treasury Department has had a program that allows you to send them money to your heart's content!

https://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/...

Simply make out your check or money order to "United States Treasury" and mail it to:

Gifts to the United States
  U.S. Department of the Treasury
  Credit Accounting Branch
  3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
  Hyattsville, MD 20782

https://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/...

If they want to may more, no one is stopping them.

Governments are not allowed to take donations

Except when they are...

Here you go:

https://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/...

Regarding the individual FBAR (FinCEN Report 114), the link you gave me confirmed that it "is only available online through the BSA E-Filing System website." But I clicked through "BSA E-Filing System" and saw this:

Online Form: Adobe Reader NOT required

That's really stupid. That's like asking someone, "If you support higher taxes, why don't you just pay it yourself?" Such comments add nothing to the conversation.

If you went to a gas station and said, "I want to pay extra for my gas" the attendant wouldn't even know what to do.

there are tax issues but they are pretty minor

Minor? They have to report all their income and pay US taxes on any amount above the exclusion (currently a bit over $90K, only applies to normal income). They also have to pay taxes on capital gains with no exclusions. They have to report every bank account they own, every year. This is a separate filing. The penalty for not reporting is $10,000 per account per year. Many U.S. ex-pats don't even know about this requirement.

To any US Ex-pats reading this, get on this. You're setting yourself up for trouble if they want to put the squeeze on you. It's called an FBAR, part of the Banking Secrecy Act. Link.

No. I pay taxes because it's my duty to society. [...] Perhaps you are a sociopath, and we need threats of violence to control people

No, dearest. It is the other way around. If, indeed, the tax-avoidance was only found among sociopaths, the Executive (IRS) wouldn't have needed the investigative apparatus, its own "Tax court" (whose Judges the President is empowered to remove at whim), and the power to confiscate property and bank-accounts (on mere suspicion, neither proof nor even an accusation of wrongdoing is required), and to garnish wages.

If parasitic sociopaths like myself truly were a tiny minority you allege us to be, why have the tax code at all? Have responsible folks like yourself pay what each believes their fair share to be, and shrug at the non-paying sociopaths the way you shrug at a similarly anti-social drunkards.

Indeed, why do you trust the IRS to determine your fair share — why don't you pay more? It is easy — and the Treasury encourages such gifts.

not all of us are that way

If most of us were not that way, then we would've been getting by just fine on voluntary donations — as, indeed, we were throughout the 19th century.

But then the government types decided, the benevolent and omniscient government officials are better at running various things — and the taxes went up... Today I pay at least 50% of my earnings to various tax-authorities (Federal, State, and local) — plus the sales tax. I don't like it one bit — I'm perfectly certain, I would've spent it better than Charlie Rangels in Congress do — and only the threat of violence keeps me in line.

I also don't rob banks, because I consider it an obligation to society not to do so.

No, it is not your obligation to society — it is your obligation to the owner(s) of what you would've misappropriated. Derived, of course, from your inner subliminal unwillingness to see the same sort of thing ever done to yourself.

But I do find your equating obligations to the government with those towards fellow men interesting. Perhaps, you'd be better in a country driven by Confucian or similarly Socialist principles, rather than the Individualist America...

Google's owners lean right, but talk left. {...} They are all for big liberal government programs as long as some else pays for them.

Which makes them different from ... what liberal, anywhere?

Any liberal who wants to pay more tax can send the extra money right to the feds; they will take it gladly.

How many do it? Oh that's right, none (statistically, anyway). Because they want the feds to vacuum up someone else's money; not there's.

Are you saying that the United States Government, in a pathetic and corrupt attempt to ensure the precious value of the dollar remains somewhat stable, simply prints billions more of it, every month? Surely you jest.

They print about 0.5 billions of it, every month. Of course, it also destroys a similar amount. Not that that's what you mean at all, of course... you're making some pathetic attempt to start an economic discussion in a forum filled with people who know very little about economics on that kind of scale.

"Individual" in this case does NOT mean "person".

If you download the spreadsheet you can see that they classify total spending as either "direct" or "grants", of which the vast bulk is "direct". Everything that is not a grant must be being paid to an entity of some kind, whether an actual person, a company, a non-profit or something. You can verify this is the total Federal spending using the Monthly Treasury Statements at https://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/... - I recommend the PDF versions.

As for the percentage going to veterans, I expect the number of veterans isn't growing very much, whereas the Federal budget is. So a constant amount in a larger total is going to be a smaller fraction.

Bottom line, this article is FUD and should not be taken serious by anyone.

Your concluding statement isn't accurate at all.

The "mandatory" spending on entitlement programs dwarfs military spending: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

We have a spending problem, but it's not limited just to the military budget, and it is simply not true to say that the military spending "dwarfs" the rest of the debt components. In fact, the truth is quite the opposite.

This has a nice visual breakdown of federal income and outlay: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
Also, refer to the GAO's citizen's report for FY 2012: http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/12... chart 3 is a nice pie chart representation of spending, please note that for FY 2012 HHS and SSA together ("entitlement spending") were 45% of the total federal budget, military spending was 21%, 30% if you include the VA.

Yes, we need to cut military spending and reduce our involvement in foreign conflicts, but that's just one part of the work that needs to be done. We need to reduce spending in all of these areas.

If there was a group or organization that opposed the ACLU in every case, that took the opposite positions, I would probably be willing to contribute a modest amount.

Here you go:

  Gifts to the United States
  US Department of the Treasury
  Credit Accounting Branch
  3700 East-West Highway Room 622D
  Hyattsville MD 20782

Also, don't forget these assholes. Really excellent work from all of them in combating the reckless and dangerous excesses of the Founding Fathers. No organizations have worked so tirelessly as these have to free us from the tyranny of freedom — to liberate us from the chains of liberty — as these wise and righteous men and women of authority.

As it is, the only civil liberties organization I belong to is the NRA.

Best of luck retaining the one amendment in the Bill of Rights you seem to think is worth keeping — enjoy your ridiculous fantasy, pretending that you'll be entrusted with one amendment after having cheered on the demise of the others. The Bill of Rights isn't a fucking à la carte menu; if one amendment is in danger, so are the others.

Once the Bill of Rights has been thoroughly subverted, suspended, repealed, and forgotten... much of the blame will lie with the self-absorbed, naïve, short-sighted partisans who thought they could pick and choose which parts were essential liberties.

You could always give your tax refund to charity. Or even the US Treasury if you feel compelled to express your love of the United States government.

Who, exactly, pays more taxes than they have to? Feel free to, the donation information is here.

Right because every average Joe citizen has the ability to engage in international tax evasion that the mega-rich and corporations partake in constantly ... it's about using your status as an international entity to avoid taxes, you shortsighted puppet.

Who, exactly, pays more taxes than they have to? Feel free to, the donation information is here.

What is the debt to income level of the federal government? Were it a corporation, it would be in receivership waiting for the assets to be sold to try to pay off its creditors. Over the next 75 years the GOA estimated a shortfall of $45.8 trillion for entitlement programs. Is that broke enough for you? Has the US defaulted? No - simply because it can print as much money as it wants. See Zimbabwe.

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2009financialreport.html
http://www.fms.treas.gov/finrep12/citizenguide/fr_citizen_guide_where_we_are_now.html

Nothing is stopping you or anyone else from helping our community. http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html I also pay 30% or more. It wouldn't bother me as much if I didn't see so many welfare slugs gaming the system for every free benefit they can get their hands on. Many of them hide their income or just blow their money on worthless crap, but I guess if they need more, I should just work harder and make do with less.

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

Any tax-related questions regarding these contributions should be directed to the Internal Revenue ServiceExit the FMS Web site at (800) 829-1040.

enforced debt incurred against the electorates wishes

And this is your problem ^^. The problem is it wasn't incurred against the electorates wishes, they didn't want to have their taxes raised and they didn't want to lose state benefits or services. The electorate didn't care where the money came from, they just didn't want it coming out of their pockets today. Now your average politician being the kind of creature he is in this situation will try and please as large a percentage of the electorate as possible. What to do? Answer is carry on spending, don't cut much (except things they symbolically opposed) and sweep it under the mat by creating debt. You can claim it was against the electorates wishes but it really doesn't wash, there was too much apathy and ignorance until it had already gotten to be a huge problem that couldn't be fixed with solutions that do not inflict political pain.

campaign promises include defaulting

This is a problem for a far more interesting reason, guess who owns America's debt? Is it all owned by Johnny Foreigner who we can stiff? Not exactly, look at http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/index.html under "ownership of federal securities". A lot is owned by China yes, and believe me they will go nuts and do nasty things to you (possibly including proxy wars against american interests for natural resources) if it hurts their economy. But by that point your default will have done in your own economy because states, cities, municipalities and their pension funds own a massive proportion of this debt.

Currently china's holdings of usa treasury debt ($1.16 trillion ---> http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt).

USA cash deficits (issuance of new debt) [approximate to 1/10 $trillion)

fy 2008 $0.5 trillion
fy 2009 $1.4 trillion
fy 2010 $1.2 trillion
fy 2011 $1.6 trillion (projected)

While china does hold a lot of USA treasury debt, they are hardly the only buyer. As of late the USA treasury has been issuing more new debt in one year than china's entire holdings of said debt.

I don't believe the claim "china could bankrupt the US" is strictly factual. As we continue to issue more debt, the impact of any hypothetical liquidation of USA treasury debt by china, would become more and more muted.

It will play out just like this.

On a more serious note, check out page 3 of the latest monthly summary by the Treasury.

We have about a 100B monthly gap to close (1.2T annual). the logical way to do this is take 400B (annually) from the DoD, 200B from other programs, and increase total tax receipts by at least 20%. 20% tax increase doesn't equate to 20% overall. Total retail sales stand at 387B for June 2011. A federal sales tax of 13% combined with 600B in annual cuts and the existing tax structure could balance the budget. It would be better to eliminate income tax and go for a higher federal sales tax to spur the economy. Give people more cash in hand and they *will* spend more. Also, tens of thousands of IRS auditors would be out of work and would have to get a job that increases GDP. In 2008, they proved they can't do their jobs by dragging their feet for several months on the first-time homebuyer credit.

Oh, wait, except here are the numbers: http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0611.pdf. You fucking lose.

I think you're oversimplifying. We'll be defaulting somehow, the only question is who gets the shaft.

You can say with certainty we will default without the numbers, why can't we say with certainty we won't without the numbers? Obama says we will, a lot of republican congressmen say we won't. Looks like we've got ourselves a he-said-she-said situation, don't we?

Oh, wait, except here are the numbers: http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0611.pdf. You fucking lose.

Amex does it. Try filing a complaint against them with the OCC and they'll say "they're not a bank and we don't regulate them." Ask them "Then who do I complain to about them?" "FTC"

Good luck getting the FTC to do anything.

Like with anything in the US, the big mega corps will just lobby and the best we the little people will get is a toothless "feel good" law.

The way to look at the federal budget is the Monthly Treasury Reports - http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html . They are much more concise and don't have all that useless airy-fairy language. They show the current month and the year to date. I don't think state budgets in general are less complicated. All budgets are hierarchical so it's just a question of how far down you want to drill. I bet even Wyoming's budget has more than an individual can wrap their head around if you break it down enough. Did that office in that town's annex of that county's branch of that subgroup of that sub-department of that department really need 3 new toner cartridges?

I would say what really matters is the big picture, the top 2 or maybe 3 layers of any budget. It'll be a few top-level areas that make up the bulk of the money.

Yes. Apparently, a few thousand neurons is all that it takes to realize that your own chances of survival go up if you are a member of a group, and that being a member of a group is easier if the other members of the group think you contribute to the group.

Conclusion: Randians have less neurons than bees, and/or a less complex intelligence than these robots.

Of course, your liberal douchebag notion of "charity" is for everyone else to pay higher taxes for your idiotic social programs that have a 50 year record of miserable failure.

But prove me wrong, hypocrite, and donate to the US treasury. 30% of the US public claim to be liberal douchebags like you, and yet less than 1% donate to the Treasury. Even you hypocrites have enough common sense to know that the government will waste your money, but you still vote for higher taxes because it gives you power over others. Altruism is nothing but a cover, you dirty lying scumbags.

You, and anyone else who likes paying taxes, are welcome to pay more. Here's the page that tells you how.

If you want to advocate for higher taxes, start by going to that page, following the instructions, and sending the government a check. Then come back and talk to us about paying higher taxes.

You are welcome to make a gift to the government: http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

Gifts to the United States Government

How do I make a contribution to the U.S. government?

Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

True, the debt I'm discussing is the foreign held Treasury debt. The rest of the debt, that is owed to private individuals, corporations and (mainly) the US government itself (eg. Social Security Administration and government pension funds), does not give any foreign country any leverage over any US policy. Indeed, the debt held by US government offices does not give any leverage over any US policy, as those offices are entirely controlled by US policy.

The total debt on February 28, 2003 was $6,399.975B (under a statutory limit of $6.4T). On November 30, 2008 it was $11,315B. Which is again a 1.77x increase in total debt, while debt owed to China increased 3.44x. That analysis is exactly the same as what I described in terms of the foreign debt.

Comparing the tax break given for purchasing a hybrid to the "kickbacks" (Corn producers are subsidized in the name of environmentalism, i.e. ethanol, but I'm not sure what subsidies you are referring to that are given to energy companies. Perhaps, you have just been trained to think that oil companies are bad.) given to some corporations is pointless.

He could have been referring to the incredibly low 9.2% effective tax rate that the petroleum industry pays. Or that for many small and medium size petroleum companies the tax on capital investments is so low that it is more than eliminated by various credits. Tax rates that low are effectively a subsidy. There are lots of other subsidies given to the petroleum industry. It isn't difficult to find them if you take the time to look. I'm not saying these subsidies to the petroleum industry are wrong, they may be justifiable for national strategic reasons. For the same reason, subsidies to jump start an EV infrastructure could also be a worthwhile investment for the government.

Transporting energy in chemical form, i.e. as gasoline, is much, much more efficient than transmitting electricity.

That depends on how the energy is being used. If we're talking about heating a house, then yes, fuel oil is more efficient than electricity. But for moving cars, ICEs are so inefficient that using batteries charged through the electrical grid is more efficient. A 2007 study by the Electric Power Research Institute calculated that powering a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle would cost the equivalent of roughly 75 cents per gallon of gasoline.

Disposal of hybrids and electrics and their batteries must also be taken into account.

What disposal issues did you have in mind? Is this any more of an issue that currently exists for ICE vehicles? The material in EV batteries and electrical motors is recyclable.

In fact, the very fact that laws are being proposed to push alternatively powered vehicles onto consumers strongly suggests that the technologies are simply not commercially viable yet.

I guess this is like the internet, then. It wasn't commercially viable when the government started subsidizing it, either. Fortunately, legislators like Al Gore had enough foresight to see what it could become.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html

For other levels of government, why not just ask them? You have elected local representatives. They will be happy to assist you.

A really bad ugly un-fixable mess.

As bad and ugly as it would be, the chinese are already there.

China's investment in Africa has grown by as much as 30% annually, faster than in any other continent, from $1.6-billion in 2008 to $5.4-billion in 2009. About 2000 Chinese companies are engaged in 8000 projects in Africa, mainly in infrastructure and agriculture.

And here you have some other numbers: "Beijing says its trade with Africa is on track to top $US100 billion ($A103.5 billion) this year" (this year means less than 3 months now, isn't it?)
To put the things in perspective: in July 2009, US owed China 900+ billion (without counting the trade deficit with China) - 10% of money that US owes China will go into Africa in less than 3 month!?!

For your survival: learn mandarin!

... and start filing complaints with these helpful people. Also start talking with the various Finance Committees.

The U.S. has sanctions against Iran, and the sale of any technology to the Iranian government (even through a third party in another country) is forbidden by Iranian Transactions Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 560.

National debt is a way for people to invest in the government. It's not necessarily bad.

If you look at treasury rates in the 1980s you see that in 1981 rates were from 13% to 18%.

http://www.fms.treas.gov/cvfr/index.html

By the end of Reagan's term, rates had dropped to 6% - 7%.

Treasury rates are the cost of the government borrowing money. They fall when confidence in the government increases. So calling Reagan's policies a complete failure is a complete exaggeration. Plenty of people with money seem to think it made the government stronger and most financially sound.

... owing to China 867.7 billions in May 2010, US will need it (hmmm... think what would happen if China would start dumping US bonds just for the fun of "raising some money to pay for IP breaches").

Okay, I guess I was wrong:

[from the horse's mouth]

When the URL ends in .gov "the horse's mouth" generally refers to the wrong end...

Okay, I guess I was wrong:

[from the horse's mouth]

China only holds about $800 billion in U.S. Treasury Securities. U.S. GDP was about $14.2 trillion in 2008. U.S.imports from China were $338 billion in 2008. Exports around $70 billion, so trade with China accounted for 2.9% of U.S. GDP. If China were to exercise the "nuclear option" and suddenly dump all the U.S. treasury securities it owns onto the market, and stopped all trade with the U.S., its financial impact would be about 8.5% of U.S. GDP.

China's 2008 GDP was about $4.4 trillion. Their trade with the U.S.at $338+$70 billion accounted for 9.3% of their GDP. So if China were to dump all the U.S. securities and stop all trade with the U.S., they would be hurting their economy more than they would be hurting the U.S. economy.

China needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs China.

About $800 Billion

http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

Less than the cost of the Iraq War, or the bailout. Far more money evaporated in the current crash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2010#Wealth_effects

There is a direct relationship between declines in wealth, and declines in consumption and business investment, which along with government spending represent the economic engine. Between June 2007 and November 2008, Americans lost an estimated average of more than a quarter of their collective net worth. By early November 2008, a broad U.S. stock index the S&P 500, was down 45 percent from its 2007 high. Housing prices had dropped 20% from their 2006 peak, with futures markets signaling a 30-35% potential drop. Total home equity in the United States, which was valued at $13 trillion at its peak in 2006, had dropped to $8.8 trillion by mid-2008 and was still falling in late 2008. Total retirement assets, Americans' second-largest household asset, dropped by 22 percent, from $10.3 trillion in 2006 to $8 trillion in mid-2008. During the same period, savings and investment assets (apart from retirement savings) lost $1.2 trillion and pension assets lost $1.3 trillion. Taken together, these losses total a staggering $8.3 trillion. Since peaking in the second quarter of 2007, household wealth is down $14 trillion

and Japanese parts where the profits go home to Japan

And then they turn around and buy US debt with those profits. You really have no clue about how a global economy works, do you? If it wasn't for China and Japan, the US would be bankrupt and you would not be enjoying your current standard of living.

If anyone is smoking anything, it's you.

apparently you're just one of the many billions who think that the US exists solely to be the global sugar daddy.

Could you be any more wrong about the US/China relationship? We owe them $800,000,000,000. It's pretty obvious who's the sugar daddy.

Just for the record here, here is what I could find on the US Tax incomes:

Year US Tax Income ($M) GDP ($B) Tax/GDP
2009 $1,398,542 (a) Not Available ---
2008 $1,602,823 (a) Not Available ---
2007 $1,571,322 (a) Not Available ---
2006 $1,478,945 (a) $11541.614 (b) 0.128140224
2005 $1,339,363 (c) $11163.759 (b) 0.119974200
2004 $ 998,328 (c) $10822.914 (b) 0.092242970
2003 $ 925,477 (c) $10466.951 (b) 0.088418967
2002 $1,006,389 (c) $10095.771 (b) 0.099684214
2001 $1,145,414 (c) $ 9910.034 (b) 0.115581238
2000 $1,211,749 (d) $ 9887.749 (b) 0.122550542
1999 $1,064,160 (d) $ 9671.089 (b) 0.110035178
1998 $1,017,274 (d) $ 9237.081 (b) 0.11012938

(a) source: http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2009_4fd.doc
(b) source: http://forecasts.org/data/data/GDPC96.htm (c) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b45.pdf
(d) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b42.pdf
This, combined with historical information about Congress:

Year House Maj.(e) Senate Maj.(f)
2009 Democrat even
2008 Democrat even
2007 Republican Republican
2006 Republican Republican
2005 Republican Republican
2004 Republican Republican
2003 Republican Republican
2002 Republican even/Democrat
2001 Republican Democrat
2000 Republican Republican
1999 Republican Republican
1998 Republican Republican

(e) source: http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/index.html
(f) source: http://senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

We also note that this is *not* spending, but simply tax income. Keep in mind we should expect that tax income should lag tax law by about a year for the tax law to take effect. The GDP steadily rises, so the main difference is the tax income (total dollars). As a nation, the US tends to hang out around 11%-12% Tax/GDP ratio. There were some low years (2002-2004) which seems to align (with said lag) with the Democratic control of the Senate, although it could also be blamed on the "Bush Tax Cuts" (2001, if I recall correctly).

Short answer, looking at a president, a congress, a party, etc. is potentially a myopic view.

Just for the record here, here is what I could find on the US Tax incomes:

Year US Tax Income ($M) GDP ($B) Tax/GDP
2009 $1,398,542 (a) Not Available ---
2008 $1,602,823 (a) Not Available ---
2007 $1,571,322 (a) Not Available ---
2006 $1,478,945 (a) $11541.614 (b) 0.128140224
2005 $1,339,363 (c) $11163.759 (b) 0.119974200
2004 $ 998,328 (c) $10822.914 (b) 0.092242970
2003 $ 925,477 (c) $10466.951 (b) 0.088418967
2002 $1,006,389 (c) $10095.771 (b) 0.099684214
2001 $1,145,414 (c) $ 9910.034 (b) 0.115581238
2000 $1,211,749 (d) $ 9887.749 (b) 0.122550542
1999 $1,064,160 (d) $ 9671.089 (b) 0.110035178
1998 $1,017,274 (d) $ 9237.081 (b) 0.11012938

(a) source: http://www.fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b2009_4fd.doc
(b) source: http://forecasts.org/data/data/GDPC96.htm (c) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b45.pdf
(d) source: http://fms.treas.gov/bulletin/b42.pdf
This, combined with historical information about Congress:

Year House Maj.(e) Senate Maj.(f)
2009 Democrat even
2008 Democrat even
2007 Republican Republican
2006 Republican Republican
2005 Republican Republican
2004 Republican Republican
2003 Republican Republican
2002 Republican even/Democrat
2001 Republican Democrat
2000 Republican Republican
1999 Republican Republican
1998 Republican Republican

(e) source: http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/index.html
(f) source: http://senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

We also note that this is *not* spending, but simply tax income. Keep in mind we should expect that tax income should lag tax law by about a year for the tax law to take effect. The GDP steadily rises, so the main difference is the tax income (total dollars). As a nation, the US tends to hang out around 11%-12% Tax/GDP ratio. There were some low years (2002-2004) which seems to align (with said lag) with the Democratic control of the Senate, although it could also be blamed on the "Bush Tax Cuts" (2001, if I recall correctly).

Short answer, looking at a president, a congress, a party, etc. is potentially a myopic view.