National Debt Will Likely Swell Under Top GOP Hopefuls' Tax Plans

The Washington Post:

The national debt is likely to balloon under tax policies championed by three of the four major Republican candidates for president, according to an independent analysis of tax and spending proposals so far offered by the candidates.

The lone exception is Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who would pair a big reduction in tax rates with even bigger cuts in government services, slicing about $2 trillion from future borrowing.

Read the whole story at The Washington Post

Comments

[Shieldwolf]

07:16 PM on 02/24/2012

6 Trillion in debt by Bush in 8 years.
4 Trillion in debt by Obama in 3 years.

Spending policies of BOTH Presidents need to be reformed and cut. Our tax system is in dire need of a complete overhaul. One that gives us a competitive business friendly environment. A better tax plan that would be simple, fair, collect more revenue and be less intrusive would be H.R. 25 Fair Tax Act. It's time we stopped using the debt ceiling as an annual budget.

[Alex Fidelibus]

11:32 AM on 02/26/2012

The difference is that Bush had a reasonably healthy economy and a surplus when he came into office. Obama was handed an economy in free fall, shedding 9 million jobs, two wars and two tax cuts which all severely limited government revenue. Obamas stimulus, was needed to stop the bleeding. Bush had no justification for his irresponsible deficit spending.

Much of Obama's deficit is because of left over spending from the Bush years along with reduced government revenue, because of unemployment and tax cuts.

[TMS3100]

01:34 PM on 02/24/2012

Raccoon1
Commented 29 minutes ago in Politics
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
“Using your logic, John Boehner and the Republicans are just as responsible for the debt as Obama.

"All money spent has to come from congress"”

=================
This one is worthy of a reply. Lets go with your premiss.

It's means the Republicans balanced the budget back in 2000. It also means you can't blame Reagan for the deficits. It also means between 2008, and 2010, the Democrats let the budget spiral out of control.

[had410]

06:06 PM on 02/23/2012

Does FOX news know about this?

[Marc1940]

05:57 PM on 02/23/2012

Use it Mr Obama. Use it.

[Aurical]

08:52 PM on 02/23/2012

It won't matter. The people who don't know that already never will. Facts always have a liberal bias.

[trollsbwild]

05:29 PM on 02/23/2012

No talk about revenue enhancement.
Two wars with three tax cuts, add one financial meltdown and presto-here we are.

Don't see anyway to payback debt with more tax cuts. Somewhere along the line we will need more revenue. Low and middle class population won' t be able to do it alone. The rich have to pony up..another 3-4 percent isn't going to affect their lifestyles.

[MrDrummer]

11:27 PM on 02/23/2012

You speekem truth!

[satanlite]

08:53 AM on 02/24/2012

When one party sees the country as a business that must be forced into profitability you have a real problem. http://www.filthyliberal.com/filthyliberal/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=110&Itemid=104

[CFL68]

05:29 PM on 02/23/2012

Not to freak anyone out, but the Federal Debt to GDP ratio is a smoke and mirrors hoax. We should compare federal debt to federal revenue. Would it really be accurate if my debt load risk was calculated by incorporating the incomes of everyone in my state? Of course not. What matters is my income. Federal debt = 15 trillion. Federal income = 2.5 trillion. 15/2.5 = 600%.

If we want to use US GDP, then we should use total US Debt. That would be 57 trillion/15 trillion = 380%.

Visit 'Debt Clock.'

[infinitivesplit]

10:04 PM on 02/23/2012

Part One:
An easier way to look at it is that each person in the US owes $50K to the national debt (were we to pay the whole thing off, which we won't). So for now, lets just figure that everybody over the course of his or her working years is going to have to pay on average $80K just towards paying down the debt. Of course that's not distributed equitably. The top 1% of earners make (about ) 26% of income - so they should probably pay off about 35% to 40% of the debt. The next 19% make about 40% of the income, so they should probably pay off about 50% of the debt, That leaves the last 80% paying off about 15% of the debt.
You you figure, once we get the budget balanced (which will probably take about 10 years (and yes, that will make our debt much larger) We'll probably be up around 20 trillion at least. Taxes will have to go up on everybody. Of course if we can get more people employed & raise our export to import ratios as well as our overall GDP, it'll be a lot less. In any case - if you make $60K a year and have to pay an extra $1000 in taxes every year, it's not THAT much of a huge deal. It will be LESS of a huge deal if we can do things like conserve on oil, cut education expenses, and cut health care

[infinitivesplit]

10:04 PM on 02/23/2012

Part Two:
Consider this: the plan to give women birth control for free is cost neutral at worst (in terms of health care costs all around). But doing that puts an extra $600 or so dollars in the pocket of every woman or young couple out their who currently buys
BC. Cutting fuel emissions on vehicles increase your cents per mile budget. So it's not like their aren't things that the government has done that will cut costs for individuals. Regardless - we are eventually going to have to pay for things like the two wars we've been in and all these tax cuts we've had.

[OneInEveryFamily]

05:21 PM on 02/23/2012

In the end, all that matters is how a president did compared to the projections when he took office.

Bush came into office with an expected national debt of about 1 trillion, looking 8 years forward.
He left office with 10.6 Trillion in debt.

Bush gets a negative 10 Trillion

Obama came into office and the projected debt was 15 Trillion at the end of fiscal 2012. It will end up around 16 Trillion.

Bush did 10 Trillion worse than projections. Obama about 1 Trillion worse.

[CFL68]

05:41 PM on 02/23/2012

Projections are B*S. I was almost choking on vomit during 2000 elections when both Bush and Gore started debating what they would do with a projected surplus...

No one has any skills making accurate projections. We should know that by now. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying and/or trying to sell you something. The world is far too complex, and political decisions are not always rational.

You are just as likely to pick winning stocks by throwing darts at newspaper stock listings than listening to the advice of pundits and fund managers.

Does the financial collapse of 2008 ring a bell?

[OneInEveryFamily]

05:43 PM on 02/23/2012

not true. Projections do matter. They can anticipate GDP growth, revenue growth and spendings growth. What a president does form there changes it. I am familiar with the financial collapse of 2008. how does that impact my statement?

[infinitivesplit]

10:27 PM on 02/23/2012

The difference is that Bush simply handed out tax cuts. creating an extra 1.5 trillion in debt just during his term (just from those tax cuts) and they didn't do much for us (in terms of increasing GDP). Gore would probably have put that surplus into a number of energy projects which would have increased GDP without increasing debt. There is a difference between looking at what specific ways money can be invested that helps the overall economy (i.e. by reducing imports of oil, and cutting your costs for energy) and just giving tax cuts so that people can make more pizza chains - which just drives other pizza chains out of business. Creating more of what we already have and don't need more of doesn't do anything really. Cutting the costs of what we do have and NEED specifically, and increasing our export to import ratio DOES do a lot.

[Sir Guest-a-Lot]

06:07 PM on 02/23/2012

"In the end, all that matters is how a president did compared to the projections when he took office."

So, under your logic, if the housing bubble had popped 3 months after Obama took office, that would be entirely on him? After all, projections would have look really rosy before the collapse.

Sounds like this would have been grossly unfair to Obama, but I hate to argue with your bulletproof logic.

[OneInEveryFamily]

06:08 PM on 02/23/2012

.

[OneInEveryFamily]

06:11 PM on 02/23/2012

The point is that you don't compare Obama's deficits his first 4 years in office to Bush's. The projections are what matter the most and the actual result.

I would cut Bush some slack because of 9/11 and the wars but at most, that would be 2 to 3 trillion. I do not cut him slack for the housing bubble bursting because the bubble is what insulated his deficits in 2005 and 2006. Revenues were climbing because of the bubble.

[Thunder Chicken]

05:16 PM on 02/23/2012

If only restricting access to contraception could balance the budget....

[Holymolly]

11:39 AM on 02/24/2012

By handing them out freely, we would balance any budget and here is why, less libs would be born to give away every one's muney. :)

[The Notorious PDF]

05:12 PM on 02/23/2012

We can't cut our way out of this problem, right-wingers, and, cutting spending at this time will hurt the economy and damage the recovery. And, the best way to grow your way out of a Recession is for the government to maintain spending and to spend more in the short term.

[OldandGnu]

05:25 PM on 02/23/2012

They KNOW that. They only behave as if they don't. They want to INSIST that Obama make cuts even though it's a "Recipe for Disaster". After all, if the Country has to SUFFER so that they can beat Obama, In the words of John Boehner "SO BE IT"..: )

[Antitea]

05:07 PM on 02/23/2012

Could this be because the GOP are a gang of LIARS?!

[OldandGnu]

05:20 PM on 02/23/2012

That would be a Pretty Good bet..: )

[satanlite]

08:50 AM on 02/24/2012

It's their nature.

[CCee]

05:07 PM on 02/23/2012

DON'T WORRY Republicans.... You can Blame the Democrats for all that debt when they retake power and have to mop up after your next tax cutting (for rich people) and spending binges..

Now.. What's the latest Patriotic Expenditure that is making it's rounds in GOP Circles... Oh that's right. Another Trillion Dollar War with Iran.. But that's Okay - Like I said - we can blame the Democrats when they inherit that cost of war, and (LOL.. :o)..the cost of tax cuts "necessary to pay for that war".

Another upside to the Democrats taking charge over a flat broke United Sates of America - will be that it will be easy to convince all the little Goopers - hither and yon - that "due to lack of funds" cuts to THEIR Medicare, social services, education and social security will be necessary.

And - Get this - We can convince them it is ALLLL The Democrats Fault! Because they are in power as WE Demand that Democrats make the Cuts to cover the costs of OUR Deregulation, Our Spending and Tax cutting Binges!

Ahhh... Genius!!

Oh .. Wait... We're doing that right now???..  Sorry.. Yeah...Forgot.. Well This proves My Point!! It worked before, and I'm Sure it will Work Again!

[Terri Skau]

05:02 PM on 02/23/2012

POLITICIANS AND BANKERS IN THE SAME LEAGUE
Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters have wondered why politicians always spend more tax currency than they collect. The reason should now be clear. When you study our "debt-currency" system, you soon realize that the politicians are not the agents of the people. They are the agents of the Federal Reserve bankers, for whom they plan ways to place the people further in debt. Let me again quote the words of Senator John Danforth:
"I have never seen more senators express discontent with their jobs. ... I think the major cause is that, deep down in our hearts, we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable to this wonderful country. Deep down in our hearts, we know that we have bankrupted America and that we have given our children a legacy of bankruptcy. ... We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Congress shall have power... to coin money, regulate the value thereof... " But what have our politicians done? In 1913 they traitorously gave the U.S. Treasury to the Federal Reserve bankers - lock, stock, and barrel! Someone recently asked, "What's the difference between Kindergarten and Congress?" Answer: "One has adult supervision!" Actually, we shouldn't criticize Congress, after all, we have the best Congress money can buy.

[ThunderclapNewman]

05:14 PM on 02/23/2012

The Federal Reserve is an independent agency of the government, in much the same way as the SEC or the new CFPB.

It is perfectly constitutional.

The Fed is not the cause of the recession, nor was it the cause of the Great Depression.

Your conspiracy_theory about the Fed has no basis in fact.

[Terri Skau]

05:17 PM on 02/23/2012

It's no conspiracy it is fact.

[OneInEveryFamily]

05:23 PM on 02/23/2012

Most people don't care to learn about what the fed is and what it does. They believe that it actually is the property of private banks. One line in a court decision regarding a personal injury matter with a regional bank adds fuel to the fire.

[OneInEveryFamily]

05:33 PM on 02/23/2012

The federal reserve gives about 97% of its revenues to the treasury.
The member banks get a fixed dividend based on their capital held at the reserve.

The banks can't reduce capital requirements
The banks can't increase dividends.
The banks cant change bylaws.

Name one private institution that gives 99% of its revenue to the government and can't increase their dividends.

[Terri Skau]

05:39 PM on 02/23/2012

And every dollar I have in my pocket is "Debt Money" please explain that?

[CFL68]

04:59 PM on 02/23/2012

Forget about 9/9/9. Let's try my plan:

5/50/0

Tax the top 5% at 50% AGI and our deficit will be 0.

No foolin.

[OneInEveryFamily]

05:03 PM on 02/23/2012

AGI of top 5% id around 3 trillion.

That would be 1.5 Trillion

Keeping all other taxes the same, we would still have a small deficit.

[CFL68]

05:18 PM on 02/23/2012

I thought deficit around 1.3 trillion? Google: "debt clock."

But anyway its close. Bump up corp taxes, reduce some of the loopholes, etc., and we can definitely get back in the black. I just want to illustrate how this is manageable if we act decisively now. Once we erase deficit we can begin tackling debt.

[J0E1]

06:00 PM on 02/23/2012

You are forgetting the fact that as money comes in, the government immediately spends it.  The problem is not with tax revenue, it's with our government.  You can tax the top 5% at 50% AGI and bring in an extra trillion dollars a year in revenue, but the government will fund another war with it or come up with 100 more wasteful programs to spend it on and continue to borrow money.  We will never be self sufficient.  Ever.  You are witnessing the downfall of another great empire just like every other one before it.

[CFL68]

06:20 PM on 02/23/2012

Maybe. But here is a path to fiscal sanity. Once we realize it can be done, then a balanced budget amendment or something similar is possible.

LEt's vote on it for Christ's sake...

We can do this.

[jrfunkenstein]

04:57 PM on 02/23/2012

And this is surprising to whom, exactly?

These cretins have been espousing their 'Make the poor pay the rich even more' economic policies from day one; EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEIR TAX PLANS SPELLS A HUGE TAX BREAK FOR THE UBER ELITES WHILE THE REST OF THE COUNTRY PAYS FOR IT.

Who in their right mind would consider this strategy a winner in the midst of the worst economic environment since the 1930's, brought about in large part by the exact same policies Romney/Santorum/Paul and Gingrich are calling for?

Anyone voting for these 4 clowns is voting to have the wealthiest 1% of the country defecate all over them.

[OneInEveryFamily]

04:48 PM on 02/23/2012

Perfect sense is a specialkindofstupid. He thinks Bush never had a 1.5 Trillion deficit. He defends his position by claiming that Obama signed off on spending bills after 3/31/09.

Lets look at the least 12 months fo Bush signed spending bills.

3/31/08 debt 9.4 Trillion
3/31/09 debt 11.1 Trillion.

Looks like 1.7 Trillion of debt accumulate in Bush's final year. Makes perfect sense.

[PerfectSense]

04:52 PM on 02/23/2012

LOL - learn the difference between "debt" and "deficit." Under government accounting rules, they are not the same. BTW, Bush's continuing resolution ran out on March 9th, not the 30th, but thanks for lying it about.

[PerfectSense]

04:53 PM on 02/23/2012

..31st...

[OneInEveryFamily]

04:59 PM on 02/23/2012

Deficit is the amount by which we spend more than we receive in a given year. The best measure of the deficit is how much we increase the national debt by.

The national debt increased by 1.7 trillion from 3/31/08 to 3/31/09

Fine have it your way. It increased by 1.6 Trillion 3/9/08 to 3/9/09

[PerfectSense]

04:55 PM on 02/23/2012

For example, WJC claimed he had a budget surplus when the national debt was actually increasing.

[OneInEveryFamily]

05:00 PM on 02/23/2012

That is because he did not have a budget surplus but what he did have was decreasing the public debt.

The actuual deficit for calendar 2008 was as I stated. All that matters in the end is how much the debt increases.

[dizmo4]

05:12 PM on 02/23/2012

He claimed a projected surplus.   If Bush had continued the Clinton policies, the projects were that the country would have somewhere around a $5 trillion surplus within 10 years. 

Of course that would have been used to shore up social security and Medicare and the rest used to pay creditors as bonds came due.