“I know we can afford it, because we’re going to make the wealthy pay for it. That is the way to get it done.” ~ Hillary in the Dems' first group discussion.
John Stossel recently wrote an op-ed for Forbes. In preparing for the article, Stossel ran some numbers and found that if we allowed the rich to keep their first $1 million, each year, and the government took the rest, the "take" would be far less than 3/4 of a trillion dollars (actually, his total was $616 billion).
Understand that if Hillary's plans became legislation, they would cost the taxpayer close to $700 billion dollars per year . . . a net total taken from the rich, and the "take" would be a permanent reality. So, that's not going to happen.
Now what? How will Hillary pay for her excesses? Hint: she hasn't a clue.
And Sanders' dream world will cost twice as much as Hillary's nonsense, or, somewhere in the vicinity of $1.8 trillion per year. That is more than the total income our One Percent Class. Under Sanders plan, the rich would keep nothing. Good grief.
good news...Strong growth in individual tax collection drove the U.S. budget deficit to a fresh Obama-era low in fiscal 2015, the Treasury Department said Thursday.
ReplyDeleteFor the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 the shortfall was $439 billion, a decrease of 9%, or $44 billion, from last year. The deficit is the smallest of Barack Obama’s presidency and the lowest since 2007 in both dollar terms and as a percentage of gross domestic product.
Keep in mind, in the Obama era, the deficit has shrunk by $1 trillion. That’s “trillion,” with a “t.” As a percentage of the economy, the deficit is now down to just 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when the president took office.
Thank you Mr. President.
HIS deficit has shrunk from 1.4 trillion to your number, above. Still, Obama has averaged a trillion in debt, over the course of the past seven years. Bush's average annual debt was less than $350 billion and Obama promised to cut that deficit in half. The Bush economy had increased GDP for 52 consecutive months . . . a current American record.
ReplyDeleteThe deficit is 2.5%, which is below the average of the past half-century, and down from 9.8% when Bush left office.
ReplyDeleteBTW...
GDP growth under Jimmy Carter, 3.2% twice that of George W. Bush, 1.6%
1.6 GDP under Bush ? A damned lie. Bush had to deal with two recessionary periods; the one he inherited from Clinton which reached its lowest at the time of 9/11. 2003, 04, 05 and 06 saw a 3.5% GDP average with a 4.2 GDP in 2004.. 2003 - 206 inclusive, Bush's economy average 3% GDP growth. (all numbers come from Wa/Post and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, both Left leaning organizations. davemanuel.com shows Bush at 2.09 GDP for all eight years including 2008. Take 2008 out of the mix and you have a near 3% GDP rate of growth . . . 52 consecutive quarters with a growing GDP, an American record.
Delete