Posted on 12/11/2012 4:35:28 PM PST by drewh
Seventy-five percent of the new revenue pulled in by President Barack Obama's "fiscal cliff" plan would go toward new spending, not toward deficit reduction, the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee contends. Here's a chart, detailing how money from the new tax hikes would be distributed:
According to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee, $1.2 trillion of the proposed $1.6 trillion in tax hikes would go toward new spending, while only $400 billion would go toward deficit reduction.
"The [president's] plan called for $1.6 trillion in new taxes, twice what the president asked for in the campaign. He asked for $800 billion during the campaign. Now he wants $1.6 trillion in new taxes," said Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Senate Budget Committee, last week on the floor.
"Spending under that plan would increase $1 trillion above the levels agreed to in the Budget Control Act, as signed into law. We agreed to the Budget Control Act 16 months ago, in August 2011, and we raised the debt ceiling and agreed to reduce spending. We raised the debt ceiling $2.1 trillion and agreed to reduce spending $2.1 trillion. The President's plan would take out over $1.1 trillion of those spending limitations that are in current law. I repeat, spending will increase more than $1 trillion above the already projected growth in spending," Sessions added.
"Our spending is growing. It is not decreasing. It is already projected to grow, but the President's proposal is to have it grow even faster than the law currently calls for."
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
As they say in racing, “run it til it blows”
My fervent hope it that the collapse occurs on Baraq’s watch.
The US govt is like that family in 2007 riding a wave of fake prosperity based on maxxed out credit cards and helocs on real estate with negative equity.
TIFI
Make that "100 Percent".
Every additional penny of taxes that gets flushed down the government toilet is an additional penny the rats get to spend to buy the votes of their party base of moochers, bums, deadbeats, and parasites. Money (including, of course, tax revenue) is fungible. Anybody who argues that “new revenues” will be used to (reduce the deficit / pay down the debt / fund the military / whatever...) is a lying sack of horse manure.
Anyone who now denies Obama’s goal is to explode the country is full of horseshit as well.
Well it goes towards about 1/2 the spending.
The rest of the spending is borrowed.
Very good analogy of the current state of affairs.
We all know it will all collapse. It’s just a matter of time. No amount of rationalizing, ignoring or delusional thinking will change the fact that we are going to get up close and personal with reality. Those of us that see it coming will be prepared and not surprised. Those that choose to believe in delusions will be the most affected.
The government is currently spending 200% of revenues.
Why should he change?
Waiting for the GOP to use these facts to push back .. .. .. .. waiting .. .. .. waiting .. .. .. waiting. Oh never mind.
Suprise! Suprise! Suprise!...
????
How did Pelosi get back in charge of the House?
Don’t they get a vote?
N00bs!! *shaking my head*
What on earth makes you think he will stop at 100%?
More like 150%, that’s about what the info to outgo looks like now.
Spendaholic Obama’s Communism Method.
Precisely...as many of us have said here repeatedly - the purpose of the tax hikes is be to be a cover for even more out of control spending, not deficit reduction. And even if the deficit were brought to zero, we still have the $16 trillion outstanding debt to contend with. The only way a tax increase would be an intellectually honest argument is after the budget has been balanced to then start paying down the debt, which would in turn reduce the debt service which takes up a huge portion of the budget alone. (Don’t take this further than what I’m saying...I’m certainly not conceding the fact that tax increases actually reduce revenue in the long term if not the short term...I’m talking about intellectual honesty in bringing tax increases up as a point of debate - if it is as a cover for continued out of control spending it is just pure hogwash).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.