Breakdown of Spending Proposals from 2008 Candidates

[piasabird]

The worst part is I dont see how either side is going to cut spending. It is more like we can choose to spend a lot on defense or spend a lot of domestic issues. Bill Clinton cut spending, but to do so he just made a smaller military. Now we can not even defend the country of Iraq. George Bush was told he did not have enough troops on the ground by his own military, so he fired the generals advising him. Smart Move. The Veil of Secrecy is only outdone by the Cone of Silence.

So now we have this supposed plan to give Americans a bunch of checks to help the economy. So we are just about forced to let the tax cuts elapse. I hate to predict it, but this could cause a real recession. What we need to do is cut spending, not increase our borrowing. What do you think this will do for the US Dollar?

Cross Fingers - Check.
Lucky Charms - Check.
Rabbits Foot - Check.
Toss Coin - Check.

Vote for whoever. . . I am so confused.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=141

I know I told myself I wouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils, but I'm actually scared of how tax rates might look under Democratic control. But then again there's the Iraq War and I can't approve of a candidate that wants to stay there longer..

Looks like I'm left with "wasting" my vote this year.

edit:

Here's a pretty chart to sum up the link:

http://www.ntu.org/images/2008pres_total.png

McCain wants to spend 100 years in Iraq and the chart doesn't reflect his costs.

NTU appears to be a partisan organization whose aim is tax cuts and pushing the fair tax.

I wouldn't believe their numbers.

http://www.ntu.org/main/misc.php?MiscID=1

:thumbsup:

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Of course RP would save $150B, he wants to disband most of the federal government. So we wouldn't have much of a country left, but hey, we'd reduce spending!

A perfect example of a person brainwashed that the Federal government is the be-all, end-all of this country.

 

[Jhhnn]

How lame, yuppiejr-

The tax measures mentioned above came in 1993, the year before the repub revolution... repubs attempted to cut taxes repeatedly, only to be thwarted by Clinton.

Here's an example-

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...=&spon=&pagewanted=all

They've been the party of cut taxes no matter what for some time now...

And that's not fiscal conservatism, at all. Tell ya what- they had the perfect opportunity to implement this whole "smaller govt" theory in the 4 years between 2002 and 2006, but went in the opposite direction entirely. That's not an accusation, but verifiable fact. The only people who'll see any long term benefit from that period of governance are those who received huge taxcuts and pork blessings from their congressional pals. Those pork blessings include the senior pharma benefit and the war on the treasury, aka the war on terror and the occupation of Iraq, not to mention homeland security and the massive increases in coldwar style military hardware procurement...

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: sirjonk
Of course RP would save $150B, he wants to disband most of the federal government. So we wouldn't have much of a country left, but hey, we'd reduce spending!

A perfect example of a person brainwashed that the Federal government is the be-all, end-all of this country.

Of course it isn't. But I don't think corporations and the marketplace will be the superior choice in deciding which drugs are good for us and which aren't. But since the FDA pretty much operates under statutes drafted by pharma lobbyists, there's not nearly as big a difference as there should be. I think the CIA would do a better job than Texas Rangers at foreign intel. And disbanding the Federal Reserve bank is idiotic. RP said Lincoln shouldn't have gone to war when the south suceeded, even if it meant the blacks would remain slaves. There's a difference between controlling or limiting federal power and being against any program or agency despite the benefits it brings merely because it has federal jurisdiction.