The money would be circulating then again, as opposed to held by the highest parasites in the land so yeah. Not a problem.
BO would be doing more than posing with his finger up his nose if his spending was to be cut off. What would he do then? What has he ever done that didn't involve spending as his ultimate solution?
If you get past the mantra that everyone loves of 'Tax The Rich' and do the math, everything I read is that the numbers just aren't really there. I showed some of that in my original post in this thread but there is a lot of calculation out there on the topic. Here is one http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262053/how-much-money-do-rich-have-robert-verbruggen Here is another: http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/11/can-taxing-the-rich-erase-the-deficit/ with this quote: An insightful reader post on Megan McArdle’s blog on the Atlantic uses IRS data to figure out how much money the government would raise by taxing certain wealth levels. He says a 45% rate on incomes of more than $1 million would generate $31 billion, while an even more progressive tax, with rates of 50%, 60%, 70% on incomes of $500,000, $5 million, $10 million respectively would generate an added $133 billion. That is roughly 10% of the current annual budget deficit. It is the same math as eliminating the Bush/Obama tax cut for the rich only. That is just 70 billion of the 400 billion dollar price tag on them. Without big spending cuts, no one can really benefit a dime unless we could raise over a trillion dollars more a year in revenue because anything less only decreases the debt we would have to pay later. It gives no real extra money to anyone in the long term. It just kicks the can down the road.
Here is another interesting set of numbers... The total personal income of the US is approximately $12.5 trillion dollars. There are approximately 235 million adults in the US. That is about $53000 per adult. While I would be quite happy with that in my household, do you think our politicians or anyone who funds them would be?