Breakdown of Spending Proposals from 2008 Candidates

[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

 

[FoBoT]

that stuff is all fantasy anyway, but you can be sure that if Congress is held by the same party as the White House, you'll end up with the biggest defecits, the Repubs proved that from 2001-2006

none of the current candidates will rein in spending, it'll take an economic crisis before that'll happen

 

[piasabird]

After the Dem's gave the Rep's so much trouble after Bill Clinton left office, you dont really think the republicans are going to give the Democrats a free ride do you? Wait till a democratic president tries to push through ultra-leberal appointments and see what happens!

 

[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

 

[blackllotus]

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

What a load of crap. The Iraq War costs tens to hundreds of billions of dollars per year. Add that in to the candidates that wish to stay there and you will see a very different picture.

 

[jonks]

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!

 

[JD50]

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

There are plenty of things to attack McCain on, so why would you completely lie about one of his positions?

 

[Farang]

Jd50 it is a valid point, though. McCain's missing billions come from his foreign policy proposals.

 

[Harvey]

Did anyone happen to notice that Bush's budget didn't include funding for his war of lies?

< sarcasm >

I know it's a minor item, but... :roll:

< /sarcasm >

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Actually good point about the Iraq War. I just sent them an email about it so hopefully I'll get a response. In their analysis of McCain they say the costs are unknown, but added a rough estimate of the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq cost about $1.2 billion per 10,000 troops. We have about 158,000 so that'll add up to about $19 billion a year assuming we keep the same number of troops. I'm sure there's a lot more to it than that, but I'm not quite sure how to figure in all the other added costs of war.

Either way, we're getting taxed to death.

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!

Replace country with government and it'd sound a lot nicer and make more sense.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: JD50

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

There are plenty of things to attack McCain on, so why would you completely lie about one of his positions?

I didn't make it up. Hear it for yourself from the horses mouth:

McCain: "Make it 100!"

 

[Mail5398]

Everybody likes to take one part of a complete response and run with it. That is what American politics is about. I hate f*cking sound bite politics.

 

[halik]

Haha Ron Paul wants to cut R&D spending... hilarious. Guess he never got to the Econ101 chapter titled "Market Externalities"

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: SleepWalkerX
Either way, we're getting taxed to death.

Yet we have an entire political party telling the nation taxes are the answer to everything.

 

[Jhhnn]

From the OP-

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.

Yeh, they'll probably look a lot like they did in the 90's, one of America's more prosperous periods...

McCain's stand on Big Military is in direct juxtaposition to the whole rightwing rant about Smaller Government, but they can't, they refuse to see that... Big Military is Big Govt at its most wasteful...

Here's a modest proposal to restore fiscal balance- rescind the Bush taxcuts, reduce military and security spending to pre-Bush levels. It'd probably create a dreaded surplus, flush capital out of safe govt bonds and into the risky open market... who'd want that?

 

[ProfJohn]

I think you guys misunderstand how McCain?s 100 years in Iraq would look on this chart.

This is a chart for spending proposals. Which means it is a chart based on what ideas the candidates are pushing in addition to the spending we already have. Since we are already spending the money to stay in Iraq McCain wanting to stay there are a 100 years is not a spending proposal. Now if McCain said he wanted to double the number of troops in Iraq THAT would be a proposal.

One thing should be clear from the chart is that the Democrats have yet to end their spending ways. All you lefties who bitch about how much money Bush have spent need to remember that when you vote for a Democrat this fall.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think you guys misunderstand how McCain?s 100 years in Iraq would look on this chart.

Yeh, it'd look like a vampire bat permanently attached to the neck of America...

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: Mail5398
Everybody likes to take one part of a complete response and run with it. That is what American politics is about. I hate f*cking sound bite politics.

Even if its a sound bite that McCain not only stands by, but confirms later that he would be fine even with 1 MILLION years?

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/04/mccain-100-years/

 

[glugglug]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I think you guys misunderstand how McCain?s 100 years in Iraq would look on this chart.

This is a chart for spending proposals. Which means it is a chart based on what ideas the candidates are pushing in addition to the spending we already have. Since we are already spending the money to stay in Iraq McCain wanting to stay there are a 100 years is not a spending proposal. Now if McCain said he wanted to double the number of troops in Iraq THAT would be a proposal.

One thing should be clear from the chart is that the Democrats have yet to end their spending ways. All you lefties who bitch about how much money Bush have spent need to remember that when you vote for a Democrat this fall.

OK, so where does it show his plan to invade Iran "so we don't have to fight them over here"? Before long we'll be "Spreading democracy over there so we don't have to have it over here." Oh wait, been there, done that.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: halik
Haha Ron Paul wants to cut R&D spending... hilarious. Guess he never got to the Econ101 chapter titled "Market Externalities"

I don't think Ron Paul has ever taken so much as a single economics course about ANYTHING. I would be fine if he knew either of the words in your hypothetical chapter title, I would be fine if he knew who actually prints the money or what the Federal Reserve does, I would be fine if he gave even the vaguest impression that he has dealt with money on a scale other than figuring out how much to tip at a restaurant. But here's the thing, he hasn't...each and every one of his economic ideas would result in unmitigated disaster were he actually to carry them out. He's like someone who spends 5 minutes watching "Apollo 13" and then tries to fly the space shuttle. Every time he talks about the economy, I expect to hear, "Well, I'm not an economist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time he talks about the economy, I expect to hear, "Well, I'm not an economist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

We've been in agreement far too much lately, Rainsford. :thumbsup:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time he talks about the economy, I expect to hear, "Well, I'm not an economist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

We've been in agreement far too much lately, Rainsford. :thumbsup:

I agree, it's getting a little scary now

 

[OokiiNeko]

none of the current candidates will rein in spending

Lie.

he wants to disband most of the federal government

Another lie.

Haha Ron Paul wants to cut R&D spending... hilarious

Mis-direction. He has clearly said, why are we giving R&D money to corporations that post record profits.

I don't think Ron Paul has ever taken so much as a single economics course about ANYTHING. I would be fine if he knew either of the words in your hypothetical chapter title, I would be fine if he knew who actually prints the money or what the Federal Reserve does, I would be fine if he gave even the vaguest impression that he has dealt with money on a scale other than figuring out how much to tip at a restaurant. But here's the thing, he hasn't...each and every one of his economic ideas would result in unmitigated disaster were he actually to carry them out. He's like someone who spends 5 minutes watching "Apollo 13" and then tries to fly the space shuttle. Every time he talks about the economy, I expect to hear, "Well, I'm not an economist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night."

I looked and could not find one single FACT. Your comment on his knowledge of the Fed, buried deep in your bullshit is almost hilarious.
Which one of these people gets to question the Fed chairman; You or Ron Paul?

We've been in agreement far too much lately, Rainsford.

So that spend less than you take in really throws you both?

 

[yuppiejr]

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!

... maybe it's just my "evil right wing" mindset but seriously... such a sad outlook... Ooh noes, what if big daddy government program isn't there to bail people out of every possible act of self inflicted idiocy!!!

Honestly, if bigger government = better country were truly the way the world worked wouldn't we all be speaking Russian and saluting a big red flag?

 

[yuppiejr]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From the OP-

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.

Yeh, they'll probably look a lot like they did in the 90's, one of America's more prosperous periods...

McCain's stand on Big Military is in direct juxtaposition to the whole rightwing rant about Smaller Government, but they can't, they refuse to see that... Big Military is Big Govt at its most wasteful...

Here's a modest proposal to restore fiscal balance- rescind the Bush taxcuts, reduce military and security spending to pre-Bush levels. It'd probably create a dreaded surplus, flush capital out of safe govt bonds and into the risky open market... who'd want that?

Actually under the Clinton administration the house and senate were in a Republican majority for the first time since the 1950's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/104th_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_with_America

.. I'd be careful celebrating the economic prosperity of the 90's if you're not willing to admit that a time of unprecedented prosperity came at a time when Republicans finally got control of congress. It's pretty easy to argue that the legislative branch of government has a significantly greater impact on taxes and spending than the executive branch.

In the current state of things, how about leave the Bush tax cuts in place and take a honest look at ways to make reduction in spending across the board so you can make even more tax cuts long term. Hold individuals to a greater degree of responsibility for their own well being and quit trotting out new programs to get more people on the taxpayer funded rolls.

Also, throw some term limits in place (8 years max) to get some fresh ideas in there and remove incentives to introduce or vote for legislation to keep one's self in office by taking care of big campaign supporters - should clean things up nicely. Politics should not be a career for these people, it's a public service - get in, do some good, get back to work...