$3.803 trillion doesn’t stimulate growth, but $3.807 trillion will [Reader Post]

Posted on by ( 10 comments already! )
        

Loading

Barack Obama is beating the drums for the Buffett rule, which would net about $4 billion per year, but it’s about growth.

Expanding on his reasons to support the “Buffett Rule,” President Obama said it is “not just about fairness” but economic “growth” as well. (Watch in video above.)

“Now, this is not just about fairness. This is also about growth,” the president said in his weekly address. “It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs. And it’s about whether we as a country are willing to pay for those investment.

Just days before the tax filing deadline, the president continued to promote his plan to raise taxes on those earning more than $1 million per year to pay at least a 30-percent tax rate, which the White House says would raise $47 billion over ten years.

“It’s simple: If you make more than $1 million every year, you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do,” the president said.

Obama’s US FY 2013 budget proposes spending $3.803 trillion. The additional $4 billion would “grow” the budget to $3.807 trillion, which clearly makes all the difference in the world.

Obama’s budget was voted down 414-0.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Interesting, Taxes are complicated and the more complicated the tax code the higher the US Debt has become. Perhaps the reason is the tax code is to generate income to cover spending by the Government, not influence spending by the private individual. Maybe a back to basics for the tax code is in order rather than continue to confuse the code.

0
Reply

Of course the DEMS killed the Buffett Rule.
But even if it had passed, a years’ worth of higher taxes on ”the rich,” would only have paid for 3 days’ worth of interest on the debt Obama has racked up while he’s been in office.

0
Reply

“It’s about being able to make the investments we need to strengthen our economy and create jobs.”

So he’ll take away from private individual investment in the form of taxes, and use it to do government investment in failing green companies, and eventually lose it all. Sounds like a lousy trade to me.

0

You may want to change the headline on this post–I think you have a trillion where you want a billion.

0
Reply

@buck bradley: Obama’s proposed budget was $3.803 trillion. Adding the proposed Buffett rule would add $4 billion, or $.004 trillion.

0
Reply

The “Rule of 72” will tell the story.

A 30 year Treasury @ 3% will double the $16 trillion debt to $32 trillion in just 24 years…and the debt will still not be fully paid yet.

0
Reply

Buffet’s “rule” was more about limiting economic mobility by putting another barrier between his own level and those who would ascend to it…an aristocrat wanting to restrict access to his strata.

0
Reply

Unfortunately, B. H. Obama pays less in taxes than his secretary.
Unfortunately, the Buffett rule will not apply to the prevaricator-in-chief.

He is running for office on the belief that there are enough dumb people to believe his lies to re-elect him.
Due to the amazing success(?!) of the Department of Education, we now have young people less informed than ever about the founding of the United States, our form of government, the Constitution, the place of Courts, and the purpose of taxation and federal spending.
Of course he will be re-elected. When 50% of those voting pay no taxes, they will seek a candidate who will continue to pay them benefits. And that is where we are. It is all about the poor, who do not feel they have any obligation to work. And it is about Federal programs, which must hand out as much money as possible or lose their Federal funding. It is fatal feedback loop. See the Weimar Republic for details.
Say goodbye to the United States. Say hello to a dictator-for-life.

0

I’m confused… is the new Buffett rule proposal that the tax rate be 30% of taxes that you don’t pay, replacing the 15% of taxes you don’t pay now? /sarc

Me thinks Obama needs a new poster boy…. Buffett is an embarrassment to his lofty cause.

Then again, Obama’s pretty much the stooge, even to his own peers. Round up of the links to the below quotes can be found at the GOP Senate’s “Leader Board” site.

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN: “…won’t do much to eat away at the nation’s debt, it won’t create jobs, and no one expects it to get through the Democratic-controlled Senate…” (Candy Crowley, “Buffett Rule Would Barely Dent Debt But Fits Nicely Into Obama’s Theme,” CNN, 4/16/12)

MIKA BRZEZINSKI, MSNBC: “…just what does it really accomplish, though?” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/16/12)

DANA MILBANK: “President Obama admits it: His proposed ‘Buffett Rule’ tax on millionaires is a gimmick…” (Dana Milbank, “Rebuffing Obama’s Gimmicky ‘Buffett Rule’,” The Washington Post, 4/11/12)

BOB SCHIEFFER, CBS: “…kind of a publicity stunt…?” (CBS’ “Face The Nation,” 4/15/12)

JIM VANDEHEI, POLITICO: “It’s total gimmickry. It’s 1% of what you need to actually take care of the deficit.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/12/12)

“There’s a big danger for President Obama in that they become so insanely political in an insanely political culture. Almost everything they do now…” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/12/12)

FMR. REP. HAROLD FORD (D-TN): “…not going to help us grow…” Q: “So you support the Buffett rule? FORD: “No, there’s a big difference between the Buffett rule and reforming the tax code.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/16/12)

FMR. SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): “My belief is this is more symbolic.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 4/16/12)

HOWARD WOLFSON: “We have a deficit of over a trillion dollars. This is not about deficit reduction.” (MSNBC’s “Now With Alex Wagner,” 4/12/12)

UNION LEADER [NH]: “…A Total Sham…The Buffett Rule is not about math or fairness or shared sacrifice. It is simply a cynical ploy to buy the votes of the ignorant and gullible.” (Editorial, “The Buffett Rule: A Total Sham,” Union Leader, 4/12/12)

FOSTER’S DAILY DEMOCRAT [NH]: “Buffett Rule Is A Hoax On Voters … Buffett, schmuffett, President Obama’s Buffett Rule has nothing to do with fairness… It is also about distracting voters from the Obama administration’s mishandling of the economy.” (Editorial, “Buffett Rule Is A Hoax On Voters,” Foster’s Daily Democrat, 4/12/12)

MILWAUKEE JOURNAL SENTINEL [WI]: “Buffett Rule Is A Political Gimmick That Won’t Work … the Buffett Rule is more likely to spawn a new generation of tax dodges than to usher in a new era of tax fairness. It is, in fact, nothing more than a smoke screen that obscures the possibility of real tax reform.” (Editorial, “Buffett Rule Is A Political Gimmick That Won’t Work,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 4/11/12)

ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER [CA]: “…the latest gimmick…” (“Taxing Those Mean Old Millionaires,” Orange County Register, 4/12/12)

BEN BOYCHUK, THE SACRAMENTO BEE: “As re-election gimmicks go, the ‘Buffett Rule’ is a lame one.” (“Head To Head: Would Rep. Paul Ryan’s Tax Plan Improve The U.S. Tax System?” The Sacramento Bee, 4/12/12)

THE ECONOMIST: “What a pity that he is changing tack this time, bashing the rich via gimmicks such as the ‘Buffett rule’ … it is a miserable portent for the future.” (Editorial, “Game On,” The Economist, 4/14/12)

BLOOMBERG NEWS: “The president may be just as happy to have an issue to campaign on as a law to sign.” (“Buffett Rule Or Not, Most Rich People Already Pay,” Bloomberg Businessweek, 4/12/12)

Bottom line.. this isn’t about getting the Buffett Rule passed. It’s about emphasizing the class warfare campaign meme and advancing the socialist “fairness” doctrine, and Obama portraying himself as the heroic Don Quixote, tilting at the Congressional windmills of both parties (i.e. running against a “do-nothing Congress” and the SCOTUS). It other words, just a dog and pony show. It’s going nowhere.

0

One nation under debt!
What do you call a trillion grains of sand? Beach
What do you call a trillion stars in the midnight sky? Whiteout
What is balkanization? Future

0
Reply