• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

The Return of Tax and Spend

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
FLINT, Michigan (CNN) -- Sen. Barack Obama Monday proposed spending billions to revitalize the nation's economy, a plan the campaign of his likely Republican opponent said would slow economic growth with higher taxes.

Sen. Barack Obama wants to spend $60 billion on America's infrastructure.

During an economic speech in Flint, Michigan, Obama promised to spend billions to improve America's education, infrastructure, energy and health care systems.

To improve America's competitiveness, the senator from Illinois said he wants to spend $10 billion on childhood education, $150 billion over 10 years on developing alternative energy and $60 billion over 10 years to build "21st century infrastructure."

Obama said he would pay for these programs by ending the war in Iraq, reducing government waste, charging polluters for greenhouse gas emissions and ending the Bush tax cuts for wealthy individuals.

During his speech in Michigan, a state hard hit by the decline of the American automobile industry, Obama also rejected protectionist trade polices that many unions say would help protect American jobs, saying "it is impossible to turn back the tide of globalization." Watch Obama call for America to compete in the global economy »

Obama said he disagreed with those who want to "build a fortress around America; to stop trading with other countries, shut down immigration, and rely on old industries."

"Not only is it impossible to turn back the tide of globalization, but efforts to do so can make us worse off," Obama said. "Rather than fear the future, we must embrace it. I have no doubt that America can compete -- and succeed -- in the 21st century."

A McCain spokesman attacked Obama's plan, saying the Democrat's "agenda to raise taxes and isolate America from foreign markets will not get our economy back on track or create new jobs."

"To help create jobs in America, we need to lower taxes and open up foreign markets to American goods," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds. "Americans cannot afford Barack Obama's 'change' that takes us back to the failed policies of the past."

But Obama said now was the time to commit to long-term investments in America's future and blasted McCain for wanting to continue President Bush's economic policies, saying "there is a clear choice in this election. Instead of reaching for new horizons, George Bush has put us in a hole, and John McCain's policies will keep us there. I want to take us in a new and better direction.

"I reject the belief that we should either shrink from the challenge of globalization or fall back on the same tired and failed approaches of the last eight years," he said. "It's time for new policies that create the jobs and opportunities of the future -- a competitiveness agenda built upon education and energy, innovation and infrastructure, fair trade and reform."

The two campaigns have been sparring over who would be a better steward of America's ailing economy, and both candidates have been reaching out to blue-collar voters, many of whom backed Republican President Ronald Reagan over the Democrats, in part, because of cultural issues.

"I believe that there are stark differences between myself and Sen. Obama. ... And I believe that the same appeals that President Reagan made to the so-called Reagan Democrats will succeed there," McCain said during a campaign stop in Arlington, Virginia. Watch McCain vow to win Reagan Democrats

So ending the war (which may limit future debt but ain't gonna do much for raising income) and taxing "polluters" is going to fund how many billions with a B of programs? And when these "polluters" get taxed, I wonder whom is really going to foot that bill.
 

Deeko

Lifer
Jun 16, 2000
30,215
11
81
Yes....that is a MUCH worse economic policy than spending money without a source :roll:
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: cliftonite
As opposed to borrow and spend.
I forgot, the politics of change meant do the wrong thing in a different manner.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
What a terrible notion! To spend $60 billion to re-enforce America's infrastructure when we can spend even more fixing Iraq....
 

jpeyton

Moderator in SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones
Moderator
Aug 23, 2003
25,375
141
116
An independent study on each candidate's tax policy shows McCain would run up $1.1 TRILLION MORE in debt than Obama.

Imagine that. Democrats being more fiscally responsible with our national debt than Republicans.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
What a terrible notion! To spend $60 billion to re-enforce America's infrastructure when we can spend even more fixing Iraq....
I know right, who cares about bridges and levees and shit when there are SO MANY brown people to kill in the world?!?
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,083
126
Originally posted by: lupi
As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
He's a black man, I hear as well.....
 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
"reducing government waste"

Exactly what and how though? Pretty much our entire government is bloated with their employees wasting taxpayers money
and lazy employees.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,248
3,341
126
hehe, seems like a pointless argument. A true Cost Cutter is not on the Ticket, so refusing to Vote for one guy because he won't Cut Spending leaves you only the option of Voting for the other guy who won't Cut Spending.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,399
5,438
126
as soon as he defeats clinton he backs off the protectionism a bit
 

CrazyHelloDeli

Platinum Member
Jun 24, 2001
2,854
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
hehe, seems like a pointless argument. A true Cost Cutter is not on the Ticket, so refusing to Vote for one guy because he won't Cut Spending leaves you only the option of Voting for the other guy who won't Cut Spending.
Sigh. So very true.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,297
127
106
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: cliftonite
As opposed to borrow and spend.
I forgot, the politics of change meant do the wrong thing in a different manner.
you had your chance to nominate ron paul.

deal with it.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,880
1,214
126
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: cliftonite
As opposed to borrow and spend.
I forgot, the politics of change meant do the wrong thing in a different manner.
you had your chance to nominate ron paul.

deal with it.
lupi wasn't a Ron Paul supporter. He's an embittered Hillary supporter, now trying to find every possible thing to complain about Obama. He also has this thing about Obama being the messiah and his supporters being nonthinking fanbois.

As if a rational thinking Hillary supporter would prefer McCain's platform and stated positions over Obamas. Its a shame what unthinking bitterness does.

As mentioned earlier, independent studies show McCain's budget proposals to way more out of wack than Obamas, plus they have the added "benefit" of continuing the acceleration of income stratification in our country. In any event, it won't get Hillary one inch closer to being elected.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Administrator
Oct 9, 1999
35,052
28
86
Originally posted by: lupi

As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
I'm an atheist so he's not my messiah, but here's a clue:

1. Your Traitor In Chief's war of lies has cost trillions of dollars. Since you pimp so hard for him and his lies, you should pay the bill.

2. Your Traitor In Chief squandered that money but that's not all he wasted. As of 6/16/08, 4,101 American troops are dead, and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life.
:(

Those who died will never return to work as contributing taxpayers, and if there's any humanity left in this government, we will be paying the medical expenses of those survivors damaged by his war.

3. As a direct result of your Traitor In Chief's war of lies, the money needed for maintaining our infrastructure, including roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, airports, power systems, water systems and so much more have been deferred, and they are in sad shape.

If we don't come up with the money to fix them, our economy could fall apart just because they don't work.

4. Then, there's the real damage done by all those "polluters." You put that in quotes like it really doesn't mean anything, but it does. Beyond the big media issue of global warming, which is real, regardless of any FUD you care to spread on the subject, pollution also carries increased health costs and lost productivity in the workforce.

And when these "polluters" get taxed, I wonder whom is really going to foot that bill.
I think we should send the bills to lying, brainless trolls like you. :cool:
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,297
127
106
Originally posted by: Thump553
Originally posted by: OrByte
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: cliftonite
As opposed to borrow and spend.
I forgot, the politics of change meant do the wrong thing in a different manner.
you had your chance to nominate ron paul.

deal with it.
lupi wasn't a Ron Paul supporter. He's an embittered Hillary supporter, now trying to find every possible thing to complain about Obama. He also has this thing about Obama being the messiah and his supporters being nonthinking fanbois.

As if a rational thinking Hillary supporter would prefer McCain's platform and stated positions over Obamas. Its a shame what unthinking bitterness does.

As mentioned earlier, independent studies show McCain's budget proposals to way more out of wack than Obamas, plus they have the added "benefit" of continuing the acceleration of income stratification in our country. In any event, it won't get Hillary one inch closer to being elected.
an HRC supporter!?!

like HRC was going to cut spending!!?!?

PSHHHAWWW!

HRC would spend just as much as Obama. But BOTH would probably spend less than McCain.

we need a roadmap for the bitter HRC fans....lead them to the right path. The Obama path!

*cue angelic chorus

:music: AAAAAHhHHHHHhhhhhhh AHHHHhhhhh AAAAAHHHHHHHH! :music:
 
Jun 2, 2008
163
0
0
We can start by bringing all the soldiers back home. I don't get why we have them in Germany, South Korea, Japan, and many other places. What are they gonna do rise up again after all these years?
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
Originally posted by: jpeyton
An independent study on each candidate's tax policy shows McCain would run up $1.1 TRILLION MORE in debt than Obama.

Imagine that. Democrats being more fiscally responsible with our national debt than Republicans.
It's been like that for over 30 years now.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: jpeyton
An independent study on each candidate's tax policy shows McCain would run up $1.1 TRILLION MORE in debt than Obama.

Imagine that. Democrats being more fiscally responsible with our national debt than Republicans.
It's been like that for over 30 years now.
but...but..but..pay as you go...change...hope...argh!
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: jpeyton
An independent study on each candidate's tax policy shows McCain would run up $1.1 TRILLION MORE in debt than Obama.

Imagine that. Democrats being more fiscally responsible with our national debt than Republicans.
It's been like that for over 30 years now.
but...but..but..pay as you go...change...hope...argh!
wtf is your problem?
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,248
3,341
126
I suspect he is more of a Limbaugh fan than anything. Hillary support was the Ditto thing to do.
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,702
49
91
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: lupi

As long as yall are all comfortable with knowing your messiah won't reduce government spending or the debt level I guess it's all good.
I'm an atheist so he's not my messiah, but here's a clue:

1. Your Traitor In Chief's war of lies has cost trillions of dollars. Since you pimp so hard for him and his lies, you should pay the bill.

2. Your Traitor In Chief squandered that money but that's not all he wasted. As of 6/16/08, 4,101 American troops are dead, and tens of thousands more are wounded, scarred and disabled for life.
:(

Those who died will never return to work as contributing taxpayers, and if there's any humanity left in this government, we will be paying the medical expenses of those survivors damaged by his war.

3. As a direct result of your Traitor In Chief's war of lies, the money needed for maintaining our infrastructure, including roads, bridges, tunnels, railways, airports, power systems, water systems and so much more have been deferred, and they are in sad shape.

If we don't come up with the money to fix them, our economy could fall apart just because they don't work.

4. Then, there's the real damage done by all those "polluters." You put that in quotes like it really doesn't mean anything, but it does. Beyond the big media issue of global warming, which is real, regardless of any FUD you care to spread on the subject, pollution also carries increased health costs and lost productivity in the workforce.

And when these "polluters" get taxed, I wonder whom is really going to foot that bill.
I think we should send the bills to lying, brainless trolls like you. :cool:

..amazing how blind you are to the eco-grift. You are all polluters. You will all pay punitive use tax.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY