I don't see why not. The "supply side" formula clearly hasn't worked. No point in sticking with that.
You can imagine this, if you wish. You take McCains proposals at his word, why not take Obama's? Then they should become Europeans, Pierre.
It is true, and the truth is I don't recall Obama ever saying he'll make cuts in military spending, I just took you at your word. We probably should, though. I'm all for a very very strong military, but we spend a lot and I'm not sure it's all spent wisely.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_2.html "McCain said that Obama has proposed more than $800 billion in new spending. McCain: Do you know that Sen. Obama has voted for – is proposing $860 billion of new spending now? New spending. That’s based on a McCain campaign estimate of how much Obama’s new proposals will cost, without figuring in any savings or reductions in spending. Any increase in funding and any created program counts as "new spending" in this estimate, whether or not it is offset by decreases in spending elsewhere. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has found that both Obama and McCain are proposing combinations of tax and spending policies that would increase the federal deficit. It found that in 2013, Obama’s proposals would produce a net deficit increase of $286 billion, while McCain's major policies would produce a net deficit increase of between $167 billion and $259 billion. In talking to CNN, CRFB President Maya MacGuineas estimated that McCain's deficit increase would fall midway between the extremes of that range, at $211 billion." vote for mccain because he's going to cut rich people's taxes not because he's going to institute a fiscally responsible government.
Because I have more confidence in Mccain's character than Obama's. You've already admitted that both candidates plans do absolutely nothing to tackle the existing enormous deficit. The fact that we're debating whether or not Obama's plan will even pay for his new spending proposals should be cause for alarm in itself. What about the existing and projected future deficit? I guess that's not important anymore? We have a projected $490 billion plus deficit for 2009 and that projection was made prior to the $800 billion bailout bill and you can't fathom why voters may think both candidates plans are irresponsible. :insane:
Then you admit you were shilling for McCain rather than stating a fact. We knew. No, Hans, the point flew right past you again. I can't fathom why "voters may prefer gridlock over major spending increases and tax cuts." European governments work just like that--they address the symptoms, not the causes.
