So when you said “It’s a bald faced lie. It’s flatly impossible” (to only increase taxes on the top 5% of earners), what you MEANT to add to that was… “and at the same time fulfill all his spending promises.”
Please explain to me then, how does Mr. McCain plan to NOT increase taxes on ANYONE, and at the same time fulfill all his spending promises? Massive budget deficits?
But as we all know, it’s completely believable that Senator McCain won’t raise any taxes at all whatsoever…
Well, here’s where I introduce the concept of “lesser of two evils”. McCain’s new spending proposals are somewhere between $60-90 billion (I’ve seen various estimates). Still far, far too much, but much better than Obama. In addition, McCain has consistently spoken of his desire to freeze spending across the board and to make significant cuts in spending across the board. That would (hopefully anyway, what do any of us know? George Bush ran on a platform of limited government and minimal foreign involvement and look how that worked out) I’ll take the guy who at least seems to recognize that spending is the problem over the guy who thinks more of it is the solution any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
And you believe that?! I don’t believe for a minute that any politician would be willing or able to lower our budget overall, considering what the public clamors for and what the politicians want. I’d rather help pay off the debt that we’re making then pretend to lower it but in fact raise it.
I certainly understand where you’re coming from, but I applaud your naivete. I think you need to look beyond the promises, and that would include a very close scrutiny of historical precedent. (which you’ve already done, to your credit.)
I really don’t think that Obama will be the high-taxing, high-spending socialist that McCain’s team is painting him as. YMMV.
One thing is certain - you’re in for more yearly budget deficits and a hugely higher debt no matter who gets into the oval office. I’m glad I’m in Canada, land of 11 straight budget surpluses and a debt clock that is running backwards.
So do we have a bet?
No, spending is not the problem, spending is a problem. Taxing is another problem, and frankly I don’t understand why many Republicans consider taxes to be the work of the devil. News flash: the government requires money to run the country.
I’d like a piece of that action. Say $100?
I win the bet if the CBO’s annual tax burden analysis shows any increase under Obama in the tax burden of any type of individual with an AGI of less than $250k (which number won’t adjust for inflation over Obama’s term).
Wow, and you are the one calling someone else (Weirddave, of all people) naive. It is to laugh.
Obama is painting himself as high taxing and high spending. No involvement from McCain’s team necessary.
Also, you may want to educate yourself about debt and its uses and abuses. Debt is not automatically and always a bad thing.
Of course it isn’t. But there comes a point where the cost of maintaining your debt overwhelms your ability to fund actual programs. Canada approached that point, with a national debt around 75% of GDP in the mid-90’s. And then the Liberals eliminated the 50 billion/year deficit the Conservatives had been running and started our current string of balanced budgets, and the debt/GDP ratio is now around 30%. This means that instead of paying 35 cents of every tax dollar on interest charges, we’re now paying 14 cents on every tax dollar. There is no down side to this.
Current US national debt as a percentage of GDP? 72%. Have fun with that.
Wow, that would be very clever, if you’re weren’t so gullible that you believe McCain’s lies.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html
No, deficit spending is the problem. Republicans (John McCain included) have no qualms about spending, they just have no intention of paying the bills when they come in. That is the difference between Democrats and the Dine ‘n’ Dash conservatives who lack the ethics to recognize it is wrong to eat their children’s lunch then leave the check on the table. It is not wrong to insure you have the revenue to pay for the bills you incur. Obviously, you disagree.
In addition to what Gorsnak correctly stated, yes of course debt is not automatically a bad thing. That is why I did not say that it was. You really do have a comprehension problem eh?
If Canada was to run a small deficit budget or two now that the economy is in a downturn, that could be a good idea. Then, when things are good again, we can go back to trimming the debt to a reasonable level.
I don’t think that continually running large deficits is a great idea for the US though.
I’m not sure the point you’re trying to make here. I am a McCain supporter, but it’s very much a “lesser of two evils” situation. McCain is wrong(from my POV) on a number of issues. He’s wrong on immigration, he’s wrong on his plan to have the government buy sub prime mortgages, he’s wrong on his support for this huge shit sandwich of a bailout bill, I almost decided not to vote for him because of it. But Obama supported it too, and he’s worse on a lot more issues. I have no realistic hope that any politician will cut government before this nation goes into complete free fall, but McCain at least makes noises that he recognizes that needs to be done. Obama doesn’t even try, he just promises everyone everything to get elected. To my shame as an American, it’s working.
I HOPE you’re right, as it looks like he’s going to be the next president, but I really fear that you’re wrong. In the famous Joe the Plumber clip, Obama was caught out and answered honestly, no spin, no nothing. “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody”. That’s truly what he believes. The government has to spread the wealth around. It’s anathema to what this country was founded on, and a recipe for disaster, but that’s what it looks like we (Americans) are going to chose.
Amen brother. I have an in to Canadian citizenship, my wife is Canadian, and I’ve been seriously considering it. You guys are a bit more socialist than I like, but you’re pulling back from that, Canadians have always been eminently practical, and the fact that you guys run your country on a budget and STICK TO IT is immensely appealing. The damn shame is that y’all are so wrapped up in us that you can’t separate yourselves, when we run our country into the ground you’re going to come with us even though you don’t deserve it. The coming Obama depression is going to hurt both of our countries.
I just figure that after 8 years of a Republican who spent and spent and spent, you’d be tired of it. I guess you figure that McCain really can buck the system and get spending under control, but he’ll have to go against his own party to do it. Maverick? maybe 8 years ago, but not now.
You’ve been “spreading the wealth” around for quite some time now. I think its too late to go back to the 1800’s.
If y’all come, bring your chequebook (just kidding!) We welcome all into our multicultural hippie mosaic! We are certainly no utopia, but I think its rather nice.
Cross my fingers, I hope not. I don’t think that Obama (or any president for that matter) can really effect things all THAT much one way or another. They have a limited amount of things (or damage) that they can do. Raising the top income tax rate a few % is the least of your worries.
As they say, when the USA sneezes, Canada catches a cold. I hope your economy gets better real, real soon.
Following the direction of the OP title, we should all shut the fuck up.
Problem here is the straitjacket that everyone puts themselves in to WRT party. George Bush is a Republican president, but he’s been very bad at instituting any Republican or conservative ideals. It all gets broken down to party without looking at substance. On these boards you get complete idiots like der treis and RTFirefly arguing for the party position no matter the facts. You say that I am arguing the “party position” regardless of facts. I’m not. I’m arguing for the best person I see (based upon his (flawed) positions) against someone who is actively seeking to tear down the very fabric of what America stands for. Four years from now, if Obama is the president, we are going to be deep, deep in a depression. Some folks have wanted to bet me that on my reality based outlook, this is a bet I’ll make. I’ll pay the first three people who respond to me at weirddave at gmail dot com $10 each if the stock market is above 14,000 on November 4th, 2012, assuming Obama is elected.
How many times do I have to say that spent and spent and spent is the PROBLEM, regardless of the party, before you’ll believe me?
WE NEED TO CUT ALL GOVERNMENT SPEBNDING BUY 1/3 or maybe 1/2
Nothing gets across a writer’s solid grasp on economics like a sentence in allcaps with a spelling error and an incorrect homonym.
That’s exactly the problem with this view. There is no way in hell anybody who is going to have to stand for election in two years is going to vote for this. We’re about as likely to become the ideal communist fantasy state where we take only what we need.
The Obama tax increases just puts those making lots of money back to where they were 8 years ago, which didn’t seem to hurt investment or hard work. After the Bush cuts, the median income today is lower than it was in 2000. It didn’t work. People with no money don’t buy things, which cuts production, which cuts jobs. Unless you borrow on the house value bubble. Which led us to the current mess.
I have a proposal for a pledge for all Republicans. If you want to cut taxes on lower spending, agree to cut spending first before lowering taxes, and wait a budget year to prove it. Worst that can happen is we can reduce the deficit or even get a surplus. Agreed? The way it has been done is to cut taxes first based on unrealistic spending cuts.