According to the nonpartisian Tax policy Center, run by jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, the cost of MCain's tax policies are estimated at 3.6 trillion the next decade. Obama's proposals would cost 2.7 trillion over the same 10 years. Obama would spend 130 billion more on health care, renewable energy, education, infrastucture and other programs. Bascially, McCain just wants to extend the Bush cuts. Anyone up for 4 more years??
Its tough, because I certainly dont want my taxes raised, I am not what they consider rich, but I'm damn sure not poor.
Interventionism is costly, and of the two, McCain seems most down with shooting first and taking names later.
nobody wants their taxes raised, and I'm not rich or poor either. But there's a problem when Warren Buffett pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than his secratary does. And the heads of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac get a 14.2 and a 14.5 million dollar bonus respectively.
With the huge annual budget deficits we are running ($250 Billion), the immense size of the national debt (almost $10 Trillion), the huge unfunded Medicare obligations ($35 Trillion), two things should be obvious to all voters and candidates. 1. Any further proposed spending is irresponsible and out of the question. 2. Any further proposed revenue cut is irresponsible and out of the question. First, create no new damage. Secondly begin to cut programs instead of cutting taxes until we get to the point that the cuts hurt too much. Then we know that we have to pay that much tax to maintain a proper balance between income and spending. Thirdly, having balanced the budget, we must start paying down the huge national debt, which may require more taxes for a while until the debt is manageable. THEN, we can pay as we go, as we should have done all along and dispense with the $406 Billion that we pay in interest on our debt every year. Compare that with the $56 Billion we spend on highways, $15 Billion on NASA, and $7 Billion on education. Deficit spending is a waste. Cutting taxes without cutting programs adds to the problem. Any candidate who advocates this is irresponsibly trying to get himself elected at the expense of the welfare of the United States. Establishing new programs without identifying the revenues to pay for them adds to the problem. Any candidate who advocates this is irresponsibly trying to get himself elected at the expense of the welfare of the United States.
The problem is with the highly partisian state of our goverment, will anyone in either party have the courage or political capitol to do what it takes?
Red, I agree, though it doesn't seem either candidate does. McCain wants to continue picking fights overseas and Obama wants to add a lot of domestic programs. I'm inclined to pick domestic programs and take Obama at his word that he understands that we need to cut spending.
I'm inclined to hope that reality forces each to curb their enthusiasm for ideology and get pragmatic about a long-term solution.
Agreed but shouldn't you choose the candidate that best exemplifies this? http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/22/obamas-spending-plan/ Agreed but keep the Bush tax cuts. Cutting programs sounds good but upon the very first proposed program cut the liberals will voice their displeasure. So your point about cutting programs until the point of hurting too much is nothing more than fantasy because the liberals will argue people are already hurting too much. Also, your argument about having proper balance sounds good at the surface. However, just because we have the same amount of revenue coming in as going out doesn't mean we have a proper size government. It could mean government is too large and we are paying too much taxes to support it. You're for cutting government programs until it hurts people. That's very subjective and can mean many things to different people. People are already hurting so are you really for cutting government programs? You're for proper balance between spending and taxation but what is proper balance? Is it just the balance between tax revenue and spending? Shouldn't it be the combination of that balance and the appropriate government size that's important? You don't specify. You are just for proper balance which is not a stance because it can mean so many different things. You don't take a stance on issues such as is government too big, about the right size, or too small. Are taxes too high, just right, or too low. You are for proper balance. Aren't we all? Pay as we go sounds good but you know as well as I do government revenue is not predictable. Economic cycles lead to recessions and lower government revenue. A tax increase does not always bring in the expected revenue. An expensive disaster could occur.
