$4.2 TRILLION Obama expects your children and grandchildren to pay for... so you don't have to.

These 2 charts are compilations of Obama's own numbers and statements and the assessments thereof from the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC), The Committee for A Responsible Budget (CFARB) (which in turn used The Congressional Budget Office, the Tax Policy Center and Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation), the pro-Obama Lewin Group and The Cato Institute's economist Senior Fellow Alan Reynolds, who wrote this article in the Wall Street Journal earlier this week, which was taken from this analysis called "Taxes & Deficits - a 2008 Perspective."

Where no source is noted, data is from TPC, CFARB, Lewin Group, all their sources, Obama, or combinations thereof. OTHER NOTES, SOURCES LISTED AT END

$6.458 trillion in new revenues MINUS $9.307 trillion in new spending = $2.85 trillion shortfall unpaid-for.

$5.105 trillion in new revenues MINUS $9.307 trillion in new spending = $4.202 trillion shortfall unpaid-for.

Even if you allow Obama, TPC, CFARB, et.al. the "unverifiable" figures and blind acceptance of Obama's numbers, OBAMA'S OWN NUMBERS DON'T PAY FOR $2.85 TRILLION OF HIS NEW SPENDING OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

However, including more objective financial analyses, Obama hasn't "paid for" an estimated $4.2 TRILLION to cover his new spending, over and above the current deficit and paying for Social Security and Medicare as they stand today.

Who do you really think he'll have to tax to make up that difference?

It's either you, or your children and grandchildren down the road.

Remember, Congress' ratings are worse than GWB's and Congress has never met a tax or spending increase it didn't love. Whether Obama stays in office past one term or not, you know that once the government gets its hands on all that spending, it won't give it back. Ever.

As Reynolds himself said in his analysis: "None of the Reynolds estimates is intended to be precise, nor should any 10-year budget estimates be considered more than rough approximations." In fact, several categories above can only extrapolate a 10 year estimate from a single year (2013). Obama's projections of savings or revenues in years both before and after 2013 could be either lower or higher. No one, not even Obama, can predict all of this. While it is imperfect, it is still the best way to evaluate the level of truth in Obama's audacious claim that "I pay for every dime."

The plain facts--the best estimates of many esteemed economists and tax experts
--indicate that Obama cannot pay for every new-spending dime he wants the government to spend over the next 4 to 10 years.

He cannot pay for 42 trillion dimes.

It all seems like funny money to talk in such huge numbers, but here it is with the zeroes:

$4,202,000,000,000.00

That's four trillion, two-hundred and two billion dollars Obama cannot pay for over the next 10 years.

Even if he taxed "the rich" at 100% he couldn't pay for it all.

First he promised taxcuts and/or no tax increases to all those making under $250,000 a year. (For those who'd argue I have it wrong, ask 10 people on the street in any blue-leaning state. At least 9 will say that "Obama's going to cut my taxes or give me money back if I make under $250k" and he lets them believe that.)

Then that magic number moved down to "under $200,000."

Joe Biden moved it down to "under $150,000" just this past week.

Obama will have to keep lowering that safety ceiling, to under $100,000, under $75,000, under $50,000 perhaps, and yet the whole nation voting for him next Tuesday is willing to do that.

"We all need to sacrifice...It's all gonna cost us...All of us are going to contribute, all of us are gonna have to sacrifice." [at 8:50 and 9:35]

It's so ironic that Obama and his entranced followers rail against "the failed economic policies" of the last 8 years.

You're about to vote for another "failed economic policy," one which you can see how it will fail even BEFORE you vote for it.

You think the last 8 years were bad for you and for the economy? You ain't seen nothing yet.

Don't say you were not warned.

NOTES/OTHER SOURCES

1. "When CFARB 'ran [Obama's] numbers', they relied almost entirely on unverifiable numbers eagerly provided to them by the Obama campaign. That explains why their list of Mr. Obama's new spending plans is so much shorter than the National Taxpayers Union fully documented list. But nothing quite explains why even the vaguest promises to save money are recorded by CFARB as if they had substance.

   "Mr. Obama has also promised to spend more on 176 other programs, according to an 85-page list of campaign promises (actual quotations) compiled by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. The NTUF was able to produce cost estimates for only 77 of the 176, so its estimate is low. Excluding the Obama health plan, the NTUF estimates that Mr. Obama would raise spending by $611.5 billion over the next five years; the 10-year total (aside from health) would surely exceed $1.4 trillion, because spending typically grows at least as quickly as nominal GDP."

2. CAP & TRADE CARBON TAX: "The effect on U.S. families and firms would be like a steep tax on electricity, gasoline and energy-intensive products such as paper, plastic and aluminum."

3. "In his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on Aug. 28, Mr. Obama said, 'I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime -- by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.' That comment refers to $924.1 billion over 10 years from what the TPC wisely labels 'unverifiable revenue raisers.' To put that huge figure in perspective, the Congressional Budget Office optimistically expects a total of $3.7 trillion from corporate taxes over that period. In other words, Mr. Obama is counting on increasing corporate tax collections by more than 25% simply by closing "loopholes" and complaining about foreign 'tax havens.' Nobody, including the Tax Policy Center, believes that is remotely feasible."

4. Regarding saving by importing more foreign drugs and requiring more drug firm bargains: "Yet even proponents of [Obama's] approach such as The Lewin Group [ALSO SEE THIS POST] find that cannot save more than $6 billion a year." So this difference, $37 billion, comes from what Obama calls "'additional measures as necessary' (more taxes?)"

This was the promised chart from this post.

[apologies for keeping this non-extended format. I felt it was too important to split up into another page that far too many would not bother to click through to read.]