Hard to imagine how bad the deficit would be if McCain had won.

[Anarchist420]

I have to admit that Obama was probably the lesser of the two evils in almost every way other than the tyrannical health care law. I can't say for sure that McCain wouldn't have signed it into law had he been given a Democratic Congress anyway. I also think he would've done what Bush 41 did if he had a Democratic Congress.

I think the national debt probably would be at least $1 Tn more than it actually is if McCain had been President because he never pledged to cut welfare and he was going to spend even more and more on the military than Obama has. McCain also favored the bailouts.

So should fiscal conservatives be grateful McCain didn't become President or what? Wouldn't we be in even worse shape if McCain had become President (since the national debt is the best measure of society's security)?

 

[Jaskalas]

We'd be in worse shape because moderate Republicans drag the rest into spending the way Bush did. So instead of opposing spending Republican Congressmen would have been all for it again.

Least they oppose Obama.

 

[ky54]

Fiscal conservatives were the ones who put Obama in office because a good share of them sat on their hands and didn't vote. Romney is facing the same problem. Of course McCain wouldn't have passed Obamacare of which we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg of that piece of crap.

 

[woolfe9999]

I can't see how McCain would have run up a larger deficit. He would have backed his own stimulus with a higher percentage of tax cuts and a lower percentage of spending. Maybe it would have been a few hundred billion smaller, if you go by GOP stimulus plans that were posed as alternatives to Obama. Then again, the tax base would have been less because economic growth would have been lower.

On balance, I think the deficit would have been about the same. The main difference I can see on spending is that Obama succeeded in getting defense cuts into the deficit reduction bill and subsequent sequesters, whereas McCain would not have gone along with that, nor would he go along any more than Obama with SS and Medicare cuts.

 

[Ausm]

Fiscal conservatives were the ones who put Obama in office because a good share of them sat on their hands and didn't vote. Romney is facing the same problem. Of course McCain wouldn't have passed Obamacare of which we haven't even seen the tip of the iceberg of that piece of crap.

You made a funny....

 

[boochi]

I have to admit that Obama was probably the lesser of the two evils in almost every way other than the tyrannical health care law. I can't say for sure that McCain wouldn't have signed it into law had he been given a Democratic Congress anyway. I also think he would've done what Bush 41 did if he had a Democratic Congress.

I think the national debt probably would be at least $1 Tn more than it actually is if McCain had been President because he never pledged to cut welfare and he was going to spend even more and more on the military than Obama has. McCain also favored the bailouts.

So should fiscal conservatives be grateful McCain didn't become President or what? Wouldn't we be in even worse shape if McCain had become President (since the national debt is the best measure of society's security)?

Give me some of that shit you are smoking.

 

[Fern]

Oh, we'd be in a surplus if McCain were elected!

See, others can make sh!t up right out of thin air too.

Now on to reality:

For one, I don't think military spending would have been much different. Our Iraqi withdrawal etc was set in stone during Bush's term. I don't see how Afghanistan would be much different.

However, you always have an opportunity for less spending when Congress and the White House is split because, although both want to spend, neither can agree with the other.

But it's all 'alternate reality" so no use in arguing about it.

Fern

 

[dphantom]

Oh, we'd be in a surplus if McCain were elected!

See, others can make sh!t up right out of thin air too.

Now on to reality:

For one, I don't think military spending would have been much different. Our Iraqi withdrawal etc was set in stone during Bush's term. I don't see how Afghanistan would be much different.

However, you always have an opportunity for less spending when Congress and the White House is split because, although both want to spend, neither can agree with the other.

But it's all 'alternate reality" so no use in arguing about it.

Fern

QFT

 

[Thump553]

I disagree Fern, our military spending would be insanely high under McCain. Without a doubt we'd still be in Iraq, and by now McCain would most likely be in a full blown war with Iran as well. Since the man (as Senator at least) never saw a war he couldn't pass up, odds are we would have troops in harms way in Syria and Lybia as well, maybe even he would find a way to get the Georgia war going again.

Coupled with his complete economic ignorance and the GOP's widespread reluctance to stimulate to cure the recession, coupled with the general GOP idea of trickle down, we'd be in far, far worse economic shape now (even without the added wars) and mostly likely have had taxes cut on billionaires again.

GOP partisans will never stop pissing and moaning about Obama, but the alternative would have been clearly worse for the country.

 

[Fern]

I disagree Fern, our military spending would be insanely high under McCain. Without a doubt we'd still be in Iraq,

We were forced to withdraw from Iraq by the UN. They refused to extend the deadline without Iraq's approval. Iraq denied that while Bush was still President.

and by now McCain would most likely be in a full blown war with Iran as well.

Really?

Let's put aside the question of what McCain would want - Do you think Congress would authorize military action against Iran?

I don't.

Nor do I think McCain would have invaded without Congressional approval. Only this current gang thinks they don't need Congress. (And personally, I think the Obama admin knows they do. He would certainly have raised h3ll from the Senate had a Repub President attacked another country w/o Congressional authority. In the case of Libya I think he skipped it because he didn't want to force the Dems to go on record with a vote.)

Fern