Eliminating Bush Tax Cuts Would Barely Cover October Deficit

That's right... Eliminating (all) Bush Tax Cuts Would Barely Cover October Deficit !!


Not only would they barely cover the 1st Month's deficit of the 2013 fiscal year, they won't even come close to covering annual deficits that will continue to add to the national debt :shk:

It seems ending those "unholy rich tax cuts" will only bring in $42 billion !!

Ending middle class tax cuts would get a whooping $179 billion.

I imagine that means they need to actually increase revenues by adding payroll jobs.
And then... how about setting a spending limit of 90% of revenues ?

A spending limit will actually create a surplus and allow the national debt to decrease for change you can really count.

Looks like Obama and Congress is in a Catch-22 Gordian Knot.

You’re going to hear a whole lot of noise about how we need to pass tax hikes on the rich and end the Bush middle class tax cuts.

Fine, let’s see what that gets us. The Obama tax hikes would add 42 billion dollars in revenue. Ending the Bush middle class tax cuts would bring in 179 billion dollars.

Meanwhile the deficit for October alone is 120 billion. We would have to find three times as many rich people for the Obama tax hikes to even cover a monthly deficit. And ending the Bush middle class tax cuts, would cover one month’s deficit. And next month we’re back in the hole............

Eliminating Bush Tax Cuts Would Barely Cover October Deficit

Ryan says get the money from economic growth....

House Budget Committee chair Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has rejected President Barack Obama's demand to raise taxes as part of Obama's proposal to achieve $1.6 trillion in additional tax revenues to avoid the "fiscal cliff."

Instead, Ryan backed Speaker John Boehner's position, which is that any new tax revenues must be achieved without passing higher tax rates.

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News, Ryan specified that new revenues should come through economic growth and tax reform, not tax hikes:

Speaker Boehner has outlined a bipartisan way forward to avoid the "fiscal cliff" and get our economy growing: common-sense entitlement reform coupled with pro-growth tax reform. We can find common ground on responsible spending restraint and greater revenue through economic growth, but we have yet to see either a serious plan or leadership from President Obama. Speaker Boehner and House Republicans have delivered both.

Earlier today, President Obama signaled an openness to tax reform, but said that "closing loopholes in deductions" would not cover the cost of extending the current tax rates for the top two percent of earners.....

Exclusive -- Ryan to Obama: Get 'Revenue Through Growth,' Not Taxes

here's what we're up against......spending vs. revenue:
Add revenue from tax increases and you still get a gigantic deficit :shk:


Added: related Threads...

US deficit was $120 billion in October

Obama wants a $1.6 Trillion tax increase -- Here comes the Gordian Knots !

reply to post by xuenchen


Ahh yes, another one of your posts taken from a BS right-wing blog...

One day you'll learn to fact check these before posting them, but I bet it won't be today.

First.

The budget deficient is a rolling figure.

The number you posted, FOR OCTOBER, is actually the total amount IN October. The defecit didn't jump that much in just one month.

www.todayonline.com...$147b-as-fiscal-cliff-looms

So that source, and pretty much every source but your ridiculous one, says the TOTAL defeceit is about 120-150B... depending on what dates are used.

(120B source: www.google.com...)

150B, that's a lot, yes?

So how much are the bush tax cuts?

Well, it again depends on the dates used, but even the most conservative view says it's worth about 180B, or 30B more than the total US deficient.

finance.yahoo.com...

However, the REAL cost is MUCH greater.

They cost the US 2.5 TRILLION between 2001 and 2010. Of that the top 1% of earners got almost 40% of the savings. If you look at the top 5%, they got 52%+ of the tax savings. So, in 9 years, the top 5% saved over a trillion in taxes.

www.ctj.org...

Hmm... which is bigger, a trillion dollars, or 150B dollars?

Wait?! You're saying that removing the bush tax cuts for the top 5% of the population could have paid our entire 2012 budget deficit 8x?!

But wait, what about the future?

Well, Obama's plan to KEEP the tax cuts for everyone but the top few percentage points of America would raise close to 700B in less than 10 years:

fpc.state.gov...

So again, which is bigger? 150 or 700? No wait? That can't be right? You're saying that 700 is almost 5x 150? Meaning we could pay off our current TOTAL budget deficit almost five times, but simply ending tax cuts for the rich?!?!

And yet, some right-wing blogs are pretending that ending tax cuts for the top 5% of earners is meaningless??

Surely they can't be lying? (Funny how all of their links tend to point to OTHER right wing blogs, not ACTUAL governement budget figures... almost like they don't WANT you to know the truth...)

That's be as ridiculous as people claiming Romney was going to win in a land slide, when all the state polls showed an easy Obama victory?

Surely no one would claim that?

Oh wait. the OP is again claiming something ridiculous, which even a small child can tell is total BS.

reply to post by longlostbrother


raving jealousy is not one of your better charms !

What?

Are you claiming that the annual deficit for FY2013 will be a surplus by adding new taxes

I assume you fully support putting the national debt at higher levels month by month.

Ever wonder what eventually happens to nations that consume more than they produce ?

WW

The $120 billion deficit for October number came from the U.S. Treasury.

Thats odd.... A couple clicks through the OP's links and I get beyond those well known right leaning publications and websites to where THEY actually get THEIR news from. Fact checking an OP helps, but it helps to do it before attacking one as if it's based on falsehoods. As one might make assumptions and end up in factual error....after attacking in such a way.

I'm rather surprised by the viciousness, frankly. However, here is the rest of the story and the OP would seem to be on solid ground and correct in his premise.

US deficit was $120 billion in October

The U.S. racked up a $120 billion deficit in October, the first month in fiscal 2013, the Treasury Department reported on Tuesday.

The government spent $304 billion and collected only $184 billion in revenue.

That is a fast start to the new fiscal year. By comparison, the deficit in the first month of 2012 was $98 billion.

That's quite a jump in a 1 year period. Deficits are already running 2+ times the highest actual point the Bush Administration ever reached.....and this all, before QE-3 added 40 Billion a month on an indefinite flow.

However, even joking about these tax cuts expiring and the fiscal cliff being a minor issue or somehow secondary is simply not informed on the situation as it exists today.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) sees a smaller deficit of $641 billion next year, assuming the fiscal cliff is allowed to occur.

But the CBO warned on Friday that allowing those $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts would spark a new recession, leading to a spike in the unemployment rate to 9.1 percent.

Source - The Hill

The source is The Hill, and the data set is drawn from the Congressional Budget Office material. I have all that here too but I'm going to take their word it checks out.....it seems to match what I did spend an ungodly amount of time building myself on the thread linked in my sig.

For general reference this is the info on what is happening, how it came to be and never SHOULD have and just HOW bad it's going to be on Jan 2 if the Blue morons and the Red morons don't get a few moments of clarity and drop the party B.S. for the survival of the nation. Just the layoffs that Sequestration will require will be devastating. Those are the notices the White House requested and succeeded in having sent out after and not before the election.

Sequestration

Originally posted by longlostbrother
reply to post by xuenchen

 

Ahh yes, another one of your posts taken from a BS right-wing blog...

One day you'll learn to fact check these before posting them, but I bet it won't be today.

First.

The budget deficient is a rolling figure.

The number you posted, FOR OCTOBER, is actually the total amount IN October. The defecit didn't jump that much in just one month.

www.todayonline.com...$147b-as-fiscal-cliff-looms

So that source, and pretty much every source but your ridiculous one, says the TOTAL defeceit is about 120-150B... depending on what dates are used.

(120B source: www.google.com...)

150B, that's a lot, yes?

So how much are the bush tax cuts?

Well, it again depends on the dates used, but even the most conservative view says it's worth about 180B, or 30B more than the total US deficient.

finance.yahoo.com...

However, the REAL cost is MUCH greater.

They cost the US 2.5 TRILLION between 2001 and 2010. Of that the top 1% of earners got almost 40% of the savings. If you look at the top 5%, they got 52%+ of the tax savings. So, in 9 years, the top 5% saved over a trillion in taxes.

www.ctj.org...

Hmm... which is bigger, a trillion dollars, or 150B dollars?

Wait?! You're saying that removing the bush tax cuts for the top 5% of the population could have paid our entire 2012 budget deficit 8x?!

But wait, what about the future?

Well, Obama's plan to KEEP the tax cuts for everyone but the top few percentage points of America would raise close to 700B in less than 10 years:

fpc.state.gov...

So again, which is bigger? 150 or 700? No wait? That can't be right? You're saying that 700 is almost 5x 150? Meaning we could pay off our current TOTAL budget deficit almost five times, but simply ending tax cuts for the rich?!?!

And yet, some right-wing blogs are pretending that ending tax cuts for the top 5% of earners is meaningless??

Surely they can't be lying? (Funny how all of their links tend to point to OTHER right wing blogs, not ACTUAL governement budget figures... almost like they don't WANT you to know the truth...)

That's be as ridiculous as people claiming Romney was going to win in a land slide, when all the state polls showed an easy Obama victory?

Surely no one would claim that?

Oh wait. the OP is again claiming something ridiculous, which even a small child can tell is total BS.

You are 100% correct. And I also agree that the OP is attracted to the most ASININE HARDCORE BIASED Right wing blogs and websites possible. NOT WISE!!!

The wealthy NEED to pay their FAIR SHARE and America STANDS WITH OBAMA on this one. PERIOD!!!!!!!!

Even CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS AGREE with Obama that the wealthy NEED to pay their FAIR SHARE and their little party must END NOW!!!!!!

This election was a DISASTER for the Right!!! But America HAS SPOKEN!!!

There is a VERY VOCAL handful of folks who are very BITTER on the topic of the wealthy paying their fair share. This handful does NOT represent the People or America at all. They are a handful of RADICAL RIGHTISTS who are against the wealthy paying their fair share here... because... you guessed it... they are... WEALTHY!!!!!!! And they are... UN-AMERICAN.

A handful of very vocal GREEDY SUPER WEALTHY RADICAL folks supporting EXTREMIST RIGHT WING trickle-down economy which we ALL KNOW NOW DOESNT WORK for America and the American people. It ONLY works for THEM and their greed and lack of concern for the country going FORWARD is TRULY DISGRACEFUL. America and its PEOPLE is what got them where they are right now is and they couldnt care less about anyone BUT THEMSELVES!!

In addition, its SAD that some of the EXTREMIST RIGHTIES here seem to think that they KNOW MORE than Conservative economists and Conservative Commentators who are NOW REALIZING THAT OBAMA IS CORRECT. But some of the members here seem to KNOW better than them!! (There is NO eye-rolling, or face-palm icon BIG ENOUGH for that one!!!!

But they will never EVOLVE as the RADICAL EXTREME RIGHTIES here are too busy believing that EVERYTHING that disagrees with them in the universe is a "Lefty" of "Liberal" conspiracy against them!!

Its a shame that they dont want to understand that Right wing EXTREMIST blogs are nothing but silly lies... just as we see now about all their pre-election LIES from the SAME right wing blogs...

reply to post by oper8zhin




boy this news of the naughty tax cuts being a small potato in the national debt has certainly struck a few nerves !!

it looks like this was some kind of surprise since Obama & Co. is not mentioning this bad news.

this confirms my suspicions that the Democrat strategy with the tax cuts is just a blame game set up for a campaign slogan for the 2014 elections.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by oper8zhin

 

boy this news of the naughty tax cuts being a small potato in the national debt has certainly struck a few nerves !!

it looks like this was some kind of surprise since Obama & Co. is not mentioning this bad news.

this confirms my suspicions that the Democrat strategy with the tax cuts is just a blame game set up for a campaign slogan for the 2014 elections.

OK then, since you know better than ECONOMISTS, (even CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS) WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS THAT PROVE YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THEM on this topic??

These economists (and the rest of the Right who is NOW WAKING UP) DISAGREE with you so since you wont give it up on this one which you are CLEARLY IN ERROR, then please SHOW YOUR CREDENTIALS that support you evening having a any credibility whatsoever in debating your EXTREMIST RADICAL views of this topic at all.

CREDENTIALS PLEASE!!!!!!

Or stop the NONSENSE!!

reply to post by oper8zhin

OK then, since you know better than ECONOMISTS, (even CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS) WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS THAT PROVE YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THEM on this topic??

These economists (and the rest of the Right who is NOW WAKING UP) so if you disagree with them to such a RADICAL degree, then SHOW YOUR CREDENTIALS that support you evening being in the BALLPARK of debating this topic at all.

CREDENTIALS PLEASE!!!!!!

Or stop the NONSENSE!!

Wheeew !

You guys ARE really in rare form today !!

What "economists" are you referring to ?

Some examples and genuine quotes might help convince your audiences.

The sad fact is that a tax increase based on any or all of the Bush cuts will not reduce the national debt at all.

Eliminating the tax cuts is a step in the right direction. We need both tax cuts and spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Sure, the Bush tax cuts won't cover the whole deficit, but a reduction in the deficit is a reduction no matter how you spin it.

The politicians that want the deficit reduced at all costs should be cheering for the end of the temporary Bush tax reductions. Unless, they don't really care about the deficit and it's just a ploy to cut social programs. Though, I find it hard to believe that a politician would lie to us.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by oper8zhin

 

OK then, since you know better than ECONOMISTS, (even CONSERVATIVE ECONOMISTS) WHAT ARE YOUR CREDENTIALS THAT PROVE YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THEM on this topic??

These economists (and the rest of the Right who is NOW WAKING UP) so if you disagree with them to such a RADICAL degree, then SHOW YOUR CREDENTIALS that support you evening being in the BALLPARK of debating this topic at all.

CREDENTIALS PLEASE!!!!!!

Or stop the NONSENSE!!

Wheeew !

You guys ARE really in rare form today !!

What "economists" are you referring to ?

Some examples and genuine quotes might help convince your audiences.

The sad fact is that a tax increase based on any or all of the Bush cuts will not reduce the national debt at all.

This is no laughing matter and its getting sickening already.

Lets try Ben Stein for the first one.

Show me your CREDENTIALS that match Ben Stein.

CREDENTIALS... AND NO MORE BS!!!!!

CREDENTIALS!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Kaploink
Eliminating the tax cuts is a step in the right direction. We need both tax cuts and spending cuts to reduce the deficit. Sure, the Bush tax cuts won't cover the whole deficit, but a reduction in the deficit is a reduction no matter how you spin it.

The politicians that want the deficit reduced at all costs should be cheering for the end of the temporary Bush tax reductions. Unless, they don't really care about the deficit and it's just a ploy to cut social programs. Though, I find it hard to believe that a politician would lie to us.

I can agree with your thinking to a point.

But don't we need a spending "Limit" as well.

Spending cuts are one thing, but they need to limit spending based on revenues and not necessarily "needs and wants".

If they can get the unemployment down to 6%, many of the problems will heal themselves if they agree to limit spending based on revenues.

reply to post by Kaploink


You're correct. This is just the first step in what we hope is to come.

Sadly, you are also correct in that this issue shows the hypocrisy of some people. They claim to be deficit-hawks, but only when it comes to social programs or other useful programs.

Outrageous tax breaks and loopholes for those we have made wealthy, and that we are not able to take advantage of, would be a much better place to start.

Like at work

Get ideas from all departments on how to cut cost

Reward the best by percent savings not necessarly the biggest savings

Employees get an extra day vacation in the winning department.

All savings ideas are used.

One group gets a reward for everyones savings

reply to post by oper8zhin

This is no laughing matter and its getting sickening already.

Lets try Ben Stein for the first one.

Show me your CREDENTIALS that match Ben Stein.

CREDENTIALS... AND NO MORE BS!!!!!

CREDENTIALS!!!!!!!

What are Ben Stein's figures ?

I don't see any quotes or links

I'm sorry this bombshell is getting to you this hard.

Originally posted by xuenchen
reply to post by oper8zhin

 

This is no laughing matter and its getting sickening already.

Lets try Ben Stein for the first one.

Show me your CREDENTIALS that match Ben Stein.

CREDENTIALS... AND NO MORE BS!!!!!

CREDENTIALS!!!!!!!

What are Ben Stein's figures ?

I don't see any quotes or links

I'm sorry this bombshell is getting to you this hard.

Avoiding the question doesnt make you look very wise, it makes you look VERY SILLY just like all the other Righ wing folks who are too stubborn to wake up and ACCEPT THAT THEY ARE IN ERROR.

Ben Stein completely DISAGREES with all of your BS. He agrees with Obama that its time for the Bush tax cuts to END.

When I get home from WORKING FOR A LIVING maybe I'll have the energy to get you your info as well as a link to a video that shows him RIPPING FOX NEWS APART and agreeing with Obama totally. BUT, I KNOW YOU SEEN it here already on ATS recently and you didnt have much to say about it at all...

Judging from your posts and threads here that go on all day long and well into the evening everyday, I gather that you do not have to WORK FOR A LIVING so perhaps you may have the TIME to find this all yourselve all day while the REST OF US HAVE TO WORK FOR A LIVING, eh? Just a helpful suggestion.

Ben Stein agrees with Obama and COMPLETELY DISAGREES WITH YOU!! PERIOD!!!

Still waiting on your CREDENTIALS!!!!

Credentials please. NO MORE BS!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by xuenchen
What are Ben Stein's figures ?

I don't see any quotes or links

I'm sorry this bombshell is getting to you this hard.

Cut spending and raise taxes -Ben Stein

reply to post by oper8zhin


Here's something I found from Uncle Ben....

Author and economist Ben Stein joined Fox & Friends on Thursday where he stunned the hosts after he called for raising the tax rates on people making more than $2 million per year. He said that he did not think that the United States simply had a spending problem, and cited the early post-war period as an example of a time when you could have high tax rates and high growth.

“I hate to say this on Fox – I hope I’ll be allowed to leave here alive – but I don’t think there is any way we can cut spending enough to make a meaningful difference,” said Stein. “We’re going to have to raise taxes on very, very rich people. People with incomes of, say, $2, $3, $4 million a year and up. And then slowly, slowly, slowly move it down. $250,000 a year, that’s not a rich person.”

Stein said that the government has a spending problem, but they also have a “too low taxes problem.”.....

Ben Stein Stuns Fox & Friends: ‘All Due Respect To Fox’ But ‘Taxes Are Too Low’

Hmmm.

Tax increases on multi-million dollar incomes brings in how much revenue ?

Can't find any hard genuine figures.

Just the same, maybe this is good advice to see through this economic sham...

"Ben Stein - Clear Eyes commercial"

reply to post by longlostbrother


Holy crap, can you really be this stupid?

Let me get this straight, you are comparing 9 years of tax income against one month of the deficit, and saying see its 2.5 trillion compared to 120 billion, there is no problem?

Um, there is 108 months in 9 years. 108 x 120 = 12.96 trillion. 12.96 trillion >>>>> 2.5 trillion.

Here is the other problem, we are in a recession, no way we will collect the same amount from the bush tax cut now as we did in the early 2000's.

The absolute best case is the bush tax cuts reduce the deficit 15 percent, which still leaves us with a yearly deficit of over a trillion dollars. This is only going to grow as medical costs continue to increase, and soon enough interest rates move higher.

I am for the reinstitution of the bush tax cuts, but that does not come close to solving the deficit problem.

This has nothing to do with being partisan, it is simply MATH using the treasuries numbers.

This is a huge problem and it cannot be solved by tax increases, there is not enough wealth to tax, and if you tried they will, shut down their businesses, or leave the country.

reply to post by xuenchen


I think the overall point is that if we are going to get serious about this, we will have to raise taxes on someone. Considering that the middle-class are taking the brunt load of the tax burden at this time, it will be hard to tax them anymore.

So the only place left is to tax the rich.

It may not be the ideal scenario, but it's about time they help out. They are already able to use their money to lobby DC to favor their respective industries and tax situations, so why not let them pay for that favor?

reply to post by xuenchen


Let's go ahead and try it anyway.




It certainly can't hurt any worse that allowing them to continue has already hurt. The economy sure as hell hasn't improved as a result of those tax cuts being in place for the last 10 years. Some "job creators" those folks turned out to be.