Are These Tax Breaks Next?

At the end of the day, none of this really matters because the constant inflation of the money supply, aka inflation, makes calculation for future revenue and spending basically undoable on any "real" basis. All you can really say is, whatever it costs an individual now - it will cost them a percentage more in the future, and whatever they bring in will be less than that percentage. Equilibrium...China style.

The thing about loopholes to keep in mind is that some are productive, and some are not (from a tax revenue perspective). A loophole that lets someone reduce their tax liability without stimulating any offset is a bad loophole. But consider the interest deduction on a second home - while I agree with you from an emotional standpoint, that "loophole" creates an offset - specifically the building of second homes, boats, and RVs (which can in many cases be classified as second homes also), which creates additional jobs and additional tax revenues that most likely actually more than offset the interest deduction.

In other words, all loopholes are not created equal...some, like the regular mortgage interest deduction, stimulate the economy and create jobs, and the net affect is an INCREASE in revenue - not a decrease. Other loopholes are a drain on revenue and have little to no offset...most of those have been created by lobbyists and/or politicians trying to buy votes from wealthy supporters...

Perhaps because the current administration has cut deficits and slowed spending to its lowest level in 50 years? It was Obama who signed the Pay-As-You-Go-Act in 2010 (which mandates any new spending be offset with spending cuts or new revenue).

Bwahaha...that makes me chuckle, just as it has every time you bring that up.

Actually, we could be in far worse shape. Without the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low, we would be truly bankrupt as a country...and that, by the way, has nothing to do with Obama. With the artificially lower interest rates forced by the Fed, we are paying about $220 billion in interest annually. If interest rates were floated at market, which is normal, the interest we pay would be around $800 billion - which is largely why the "deficit cuts" you seem to dwell upon, despite our increasing debt - which is the real problem. Even at the artificial rates, interest is projected to be $1 trillion in 7 years...

Slowed spending? Where?

I did rather well in Mathematics, but it has been 30 years since I was in college, so maybe a refresher course is in order.

Let's see in the History of the USA, all Presidents acquired a National Debt of 10 Trillion Dollars.

January 2009 is the date Obama inherited a National Debt of 10 Trillion Dollars.

Today the National Debt is 16.512 Trillion Dollars (4 years 1 month later) 65 % increase

I flunked Rocket Science, but of course this is only 5th Grade Math

So in case my math is off, let's see what USA Today has to say:

Column: Obama owns the debt now

RHR you can Spin all you like, but facts are facts..... We have a spending problem and we have a man at the wheel that cannot fathom the long term repercussions of borrowing 42 cents of every dollar from China and others, of course we have millions of other people who are just as blind as Obama.

When Interests rates start going up, we could very see well over 50 cents of every dollar in borrowing.

The proposals being floated around about reducing tax deductions for Mortgage Interest will hurt low and middle income earners profoundly.

Reducing tax deductions for charities will hurt the income something terrible, soup kitchens, goodwill, church's, etc. will devastate those that really need help.. the poor.

Raising Taxes during a recession is the dumbest thing that can be done, as of Jan. 2013 low and middle Income families have had taxes rise. And now more talk of raising Taxes? Not Dumb, Pure Ignorance!

.

Hmmmmm.....Clinton has SURPLUSES. That means the 10 trillion dollar debt we inherited from Bush was a pure 10 billion dollar increase.

Seems like, using your numbers, Obama only increased the debt 6.5 trillion dollars.

A bit lower than Bush......

Yes, an overly simplistic and less exact way of looking at things. But the same kind of shewed logic in much of what we get with the anti-Obama pundits.

RHR, you brought up pay-go? Really? Do you even follow the discussion? Pay-go has been completely and totally ignored to the point it's not worth the ink used to sign it into law.

If it was up to me, day one I would eliminate the Earned income credit welfare payments. What the heck kinda system lets people ge tlarger refunds than they pay in.
Step two would be eliminating deductions for kids. Why should people that are placing the burden on society not have to pay taxes ? Seems to me the more kids you have the more taxes you should pay.

Taking classes on Spin also I see...lol......

Yes Clinton had a surplus as he balanced the Budget, but the National Debt was 5.56 Trillion when Clinton left Office.

Clinton added 1.1 trillion in 8 years

Busch added 4.7 Trillion in 8 years

Obama 5.8 Trillion in 4 years

Let's look at the chart to see who has skewed logic

http://www.skymachines.com/US-Nation...ental-Term.htm

Allison, just because I did not post (actually not a member here for most of his term) back during Busch's years, if I had I would have posted he had lot's of faults too

.

I said "slowed spending", and Obama did. Now that doesn't mean he reduced the debt; it means he slowed spending.

This link:
PolitiFact | Viral Facebook post says Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president

Explains it. And even if you add inflation adjusted dollars, while Obama is no longer the lowest, he's still lower than most.