Obama, Republican Congress to Plunge Nation Deeper into Debt

If the latest plan goes through, the Bush tax cuts will be extended as per the Republican Congress, but unemployment benefits will be extended and payroll taxes cut as per Obama. Result? Almost a trillion dollars in additional deficits over the next two years.

I was hoping for a repeat of 1994. With a Democrat in the White House and Republicans controlling Congress, budgets shrank and the country got its finances in order.

Of course, back then, we had Ross Perot beating the drum for deficit reduction, Republicans who really wanted smaller government, and a Democrat President who was willing to cut guns and butter.

Now we have Bush-era Republicans who love cutting taxes without cutting expenses and a Democrat president who loves spending more money without raising taxes. It’s like a perfect storm for fiscal irresponsibility.

So much for that smaller, more responsible government the voters asked for in 2010, Republicans. You guys talk the small government talk, but don’t walk the walk. Obama voters are likewise disappointed in their man.

Here’s a breakdown of the costs of the tax cuts and additional spending, from Megan McArdle. The vilified “rich”-over-$250,000 folks had surprisingly little to do with it. It was mostly “poor” bastards like me making less than that who got the lion’s share of the tax cuts. Here’s a crazy idea: cut spending. It’s as if our leaders can’t imagine that there’s any part of government that couldn’t be more efficient.

tax-deal-breakdown-thumb-520x391-38097

Needless to say, this will be another trillion dollars the Federal Reserve will have to print. That’s on top of the $600 billion in Quantitative Easing 2 that’s already in progress, and on top of current budget deficits of a trillion dollars per year. Buy gold and silver, folks.

This entry was posted in Economics, Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

 

 

8 Responses to Obama, Republican Congress to Plunge Nation Deeper into Debt

  1. Mike S says:

    And not just that they can’t imagine that any part of government couldn’t be more efficient, they canít imagine that thereís any part of government that doesn’t need to exist!

  2. Les Jones says:

    Jersey, I wouldn’t say it quite that strongly, but yeh, we’re going to have to make cuts to guns and butter both.

    It’s time to start bringing troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ve had enough time. We’ll always have troops there, just like we do in Germany or Korea, but we can’t sustain these troop levels. It’s ruinous.

  3. Jim Hughes says:

    Free lunch for everyone, check your wallet if your on Social Security, Medicare or Veterans benefits early next year you wont get your checks or they will be 40% smaller. The rich will get their reduced taxes and the elected members of Congress from the(TEA PARTY)is going to vote against the debit ceiling being increased. Obama the jellyfish will swing in the wind!

  4. nathan says:

    You talk like you think raising taxes brings in more money. It doesn’t. It just slows the economy down, and you end up collecting less money anyway. The people who pay those taxes get a vote. They can refrain from investing, defer income, take their vacation instead of working, and a host of other micro and macro decisions that will lessen their tax burden.

    I saw a chart recently that showed that actual tax receipts as a percentage of GDP has remained basically constant at around 19% for the last 50 years or so.

    So, if you want to collect more taxes, you should try to do something to increase GDP – like maybe cut taxes even further.

  5. Kerrio Brown says:

    If the concern is that a lot of the wealthy may cut or prevent job hires then why not provide a tax incentive for the business they are in charge of rather than boost their income? How many of those making 250K+ are directly responsible for hiring employees? I’d guess (I know I shouldn’t) that some proportion of these wealthy either inherited it, or or are responsible for a minimum (and not negotiable) number of jobs like doctors, lawyers, actors and sports players (the latter of course to a possibly negligible degree. It seems like a crude way to ensure job growth to just give them all tax reductions. I know there are already business incentives but proposing more to compromise would be much more helpful than flat out giving money to the wealthy. Of course there’s nothing wrong w/ giving money to anyone, except when there are people trying to make ends meet, with no purchasing power on their own to afford necessities like food and health care, which are by the way much more efficient for productivity than luxury cars and 4-star dinners. Something’s off here. Is it just that democrats are completely inept at explaining things or am I not understanding the message?

    Kerrio

  6. Daniel Laviola says:

    How much longer will we have to deal with these lousy politicians

  7. Daniel Laviola says:

    Obama ran to CLinton to save him.HA HA