McCain Promises To Ruin Economy

[frazzledgear]

At a time when the government is doing all it can to prove the basic theory behind the New Deal economic policy that pumping money into the lower and middle classes helps fuel economic growth John McCain is loving telling the ignorant masses that he will massivly slash that prop to our economy. I think its so funny. So, government spending will be slashed--it won't be, McCain is lying--so that we can all enjoy lower taxes! Reform!

I already addressed the first part of your ignorant, uneducated and uninformed remarks. So let's get to your accusation that McCain was lying when he said government spending would be reduced under him. First of all what has made so many Republicans unhappy with Bush has been his inability to veto bills that included so much wasteful spending. That has been a MAJOR complaint from Republicans since his second year in office. McCain himself has publicly criticized Bush repeatedly for failing to veto bills loaded with pork. And note -once Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress -government spending and the amount of pork took a major jump. Democrat control resulted in a sharply increased rate of government spending. Oddly enough it is these same Democrat members of Congress who are the most vocal in criticizing Bush for the increase in national debt -when that is under THEIR control in the first place! Talk about hypocrisy.

McCain has not asked for nor taken a single earmark the entire time he has been in the Senate. Not ONCE - but has complained bitterly about those Senators who do. Obama has been there just 20 months and has already received more than 57 earmarks for more than $90 million dollars. A really good record for pork for just a freshman Senator too.

Every time McCain has run for President, he has said he would veto any bill with earmarks in them. He managed an entire career without them himself, his state keeps on sending him back to Senate in spite of never "bringing home the pork" -and he expects other Congressional members to do the same.

So who do you figure is more likely to get bills to his desk with the pork cut out? Obama, who easily and quickly settled into the Senate in the "business-as-usual" mode of using it as an opportunity to increase government waste and tack on his own personal pork? Or McCain, who not only has sworn to veto any bill with earmarks in it -but has refused to ask for or accept any earmarks EVER in his career as Senator. LOL

I'm sorry but reducing government spending has always been a Republican thing and everyone knows it. While Democrats believe in the exact opposite of bigger government, higher taxes and spending lots more of our money.

McCain wins this argument hands down.

 

[Chris]

I already addressed the first part of your ignorant, uneducated and uninformed remarks. So let's get to your accusation that McCain was lying when he said government spending would be reduced under him. First of all what has made so many Republicans unhappy with Bush has been his inability to veto bills that included so much wasteful spending. That has been a MAJOR complaint from Republicans since his second year in office. McCain himself has publicly criticized Bush repeatedly for failing to veto bills loaded with pork. And note -once Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress -government spending and the amount of pork took a major jump. Democrat control resulted in a sharply increased rate of government spending. Oddly enough it is these same Democrat members of Congress who are the most vocal in criticizing Bush for the increase in national debt -when that is under THEIR control in the first place! Talk about hypocrisy.

McCain has not asked for nor taken a single earmark the entire time he has been in the Senate. Not ONCE - but has complained bitterly about those Senators who do. Obama has been there just 20 months and has already received more than 57 earmarks for more than $90 million dollars. A really good record for pork for just a freshman Senator too.

Every time McCain has run for President, he has said he would veto any bill with earmarks in them. He managed an entire career without them himself, his state keeps on sending him back to Senate in spite of never "bringing home the pork" -and he expects other Congressional members to do the same.

So who do you figure is more likely to get bills to his desk with the pork cut out? Obama, who easily and quickly settled into the Senate in the "business-as-usual" mode of using it as an opportunity to increase government waste and tack on his own personal pork? Or McCain, who not only has sworn to veto any bill with earmarks in it -but has refused to ask for or accept any earmarks EVER in his career as Senator. LOL

I'm sorry but reducing government spending has always been a Republican thing and everyone knows it. While Democrats believe in the exact opposite of bigger government, higher taxes and spending lots more of our money.

McCain wins this argument hands down.

Wrong....

The Arizona senator is promising to balance the budget by the end of his first term, while simultaneously extending the George W. Bush tax cuts, introducing billions of dollars of new tax cuts of his own, and remaining in Iraq as long as is necessary to stabilize that country. Asked how this miracle will be accomplished, McCain told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News This Week on April 20 that he could come up with $100 billion "tomorrow" by vetoing pork-barrel spending bills.

"Here's $100 billion right here for you, George. Two years in a row, the last two years, the president of the United States has signed into law two big spending, pork barrel-laden bills with $35 billion (in earmarks). In the years before that, $65 billion. You do away with those, there's $100 billion right before you look at any agency."
Pouff! $100 billion in taxpayer money! Saved! Just like that! With a flick of the presidential veto pen!

There are a number of problems with this magical budgetary balancing act. First of all, the suspiciously round $100 billion figure is largely a figment of the McCain campaign's imagination. I have not been able to find a single independent budget expert to vouch for it. McCain's economics adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, will not say how the campaign arrived at the figure, other than that it is an extrapolation from various studies, including a 2006 study by the Congressional Research Service available here.

The CRS study breaks down earmarks by different government departments, without giving a global figure. According to Scott Lilly, a former Democratic appropriations staffer now with the Center for American Progress Action Fund, the CRS study identifies a total of $52 billion in earmarks for a single year. However, much of this money is tied to items such as foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt, and Jordan, that McCain says he will not touch.

By most definitions of the term, the amount of money spent on earmarks is much lower than the CRS study. The Office for Management and the Budget came up with a figure for $16.9 billion in the 2008 appropriation bills. Taxpayers for Commonsense, an independent watchdog group that focuses on wasteful spending, identified $18.3 billion worth of earmarks in the 2008 bills, a 23 per cent cut from a record $23.6 billion set in 2005.

McCain's Fantasy War on Earmarks - Fact Checker

Getting out of Iraq will save us ten times what any earmark vetos will.

 

[wayne]

Poppycock.

I am sorry to upset my conservative allies, but in my opinion Editec is right; many of the policies of the great depression have been very good for the country. The proof is that prior to the great depression, depressions happened about every twenty years so. Since the economics programs of the 1930 we have not had a depression. We have had some short termed recessions but no depressions. If we don’t get our energy prices down and stop shipping our money overseas for oil all bets are off.

 

[wayne]

Obama will pull us out of Iraq, which will save us $200 billion dollars a year. Then universal healthcare will save us another $200 billion a year and make us more competitive. That's $1.6 trillion saved in Obama's first term.

And, after the military has been demoralized who will fight for the country, you?

 

[frazzledgear]

Obama will pull us out of Iraq, which will save us $200 billion dollars a year. Then universal healthcare will save us another $200 billion a year and make us more competitive. That's $1.6 trillion saved in Obama's first term.

You have to be the product of a US public school. If you think universal healthcare has EVER saved money for any country, your nuts. That bit of idiocy left my jaw hanging.

It has always ended up costing FAR MORE and ended up as THE biggest government expenditure -and you might want to take a look at the "great" healthcare citizens got in exchange too. Universal healthcare will cost us trillions and that cost will only rise. I guess you would rather pay far more in taxes to pay for that healthcare than you would have voluntarily chosen to spend on it yourself -because that is what has happened in EVERY country with it. And they got an overburdened, over-utilized inefficient system for it. You probably think its outrageous to wait the average of six weeks here to see a doctor. That will increase to an average of 18 MONTHS with universal healthcare -which means by the time you get to see a doctor, any serious illness you may have has only gotten worse and much more difficult to treat. That's been the experience for those blessed with universal healthcare. Which means all sorts of diseases that would have had fewer complications and a lower mortality rate if they had just been seen earlier -are far more difficult to treat and too often already terminal. Want to wait 18 months before a doctor can get around to dealing with that cancer? Or diabetes? Heart disease and high blood pressure? Or any of the other hundreds of conditions and diseases that rob you of function, quality of life or your life itself?

In the UK, the government decided the best way to try and minimize their outrageous healthcare expenditures was by rationing healthcare - to the elderly. Even when the elderly have a cancer that would be cured with appropriate treatment or a disease that with appropriate treatment would increase their quality of life or cure them -they are denied that treatment and allowed to just die. Apparently the UK wants their elderly to kick the bucket as soon as possible -which may explain why in the UK their mortality rates for illnesses like heart disease, stroke, breast cancer, prostate cancer, heart disease etc. that have been dropping in this country all along -are all rising there. Not much to brag about in my book. I bet you thought universal healthcare would INCREASE the overall health of the population that had it. Not kill them off sooner. You would be wrong.

Maybe you could go on the campaign trail with Obama and explain to everyone why you think the ONLY way to assist those who cannot afford healthcare insurance -is for the rest of us to forfeit our health and life expectancy!

Maybe you haven't been listening to Obama on Iraq. He has already changed his mind on that one which has really, REALLY ticked off the far left. He now says that circumstances on the ground would dictate when troops could be removed. Does that sound familiar to you since it has been said so many times by Republicans already? And since troop removal is already under way with more scheduled to leave on a regular basis - and most rational people really do agree that schedule is actually best determined by those on the ground and in the KNOW - you really expect Obama to just pack up the rest of them in a matter of weeks? Even if it means millions of Iraqis suffer by leaving before they were able to adequately provide for their own security? And you want to pretend you are some kind of humanitarian actually concerned about human life? Or has ANY understanding of the longterm consequences for THIS country by doing that? LOL

 

[frazzledgear]

I am sorry to upset my conservative allies, but in my opinion Editec is right; many of the policies of the great depression have been very good for the country. The proof is that prior to the great depression, depressions happened about every twenty years so. Since the economics programs of the 1930 we have not had a depression. We have had some short termed recessions but no depressions. If we don’t get our energy prices down and stop shipping our money overseas for oil all bets are off.

The proof is that we haven't had serious depressions since? But wait -Congress repealed FDR policies and we haven't returned to them since and instead have gone a different direction. But its FDR's policies that were DUMPED that are actually responsible for no serious depression since? Are you smoking something? ROFL

 

[TruthOrg]

Obama will send us into a Next-Gen Depression. You can bank on that.

 

[Dr Grump]

New Deal worked so well that it took a World War to fix the Economy. That policy worked great!

The Depression was well over before the advent of WWII....

 

[Dr Grump]

Obama will send us into a Next-Gen Depression. You can bank on that.

How can he, when Bush has already done that..

 

[Dr Grump]

And, after the military has been demoralized who will fight for the country, you?

The military needs to be in Iraq to feel good about itself?

 

[Dr Grump]

In the UK, the government decided the best way to try and minimize their outrageous healthcare expenditures was by rationing healthcare - to the elderly. Even when the elderly have a cancer that would be cured with appropriate treatment or a disease that with appropriate treatment would increase their quality of life or cure them -they are denied that treatment and allowed to just die.

What a load of crap. Spoken like a true brain-washed conservative. Where do you get this stuff from? Karl Rove 101?? Before you answer, tread carefully - I have lived in the UK and have had to use its healthcare system, as have my ELDERLY relatives...Links pleas. And please, no outrageous examples that have made the news - that can happen in any country. The above certainly states categorically that the elderly are left to die as a matter of course. Back it up, or stop spewing propaganda..

 

[editec]

Frazzel,

there was no shortage of good and services that caused the depression.

What caused the depression was too much money chasing too few profits. The stock market bubbled until it popped!

The PEOPLE didn't have any money, the weathy had too much of it.

While I do not think that the New Deal solved the depression, I know damned well it mitigated the pain of it for millions of americans.

And the new deal did not lengthen the depression.

That's must more supply sider sider bullshit, sport.

The very same philosophy which caused the depression is in the process of setting up for still another one.

The aughts look suspiciously like the 1920s to me, to be honest.

the rich are richer than ever, but the working class is strapped.

that is the setup for another depression.

the ONLY think tjhat's holding it back right now, is cheap money and if that money tightens up, like it appears to be now?

Well...we'll see.

 

[sealybobo]

New Deal worked so well that it took a World War to fix the Economy. That policy worked great!

I thought the New Deal was AFTER the war?

I heard something a while back about the GI bill after ww2 and how it not only helped the economy, it smarted up America.

Please explain what you mean by "it took a world war to fix the economy"?

And before Social Security, a lot of Americans died without dignity. Most Americans want it. It's not the program that sucks. It's the politicians, specifically the Republicans that are assuring that it won't be there in the future. The republicans are right that government doesn't work. At least not when they are running it. So maybe start putting two and two together, huh? The GOP doesn't like or want social security so the last three presidents each doubled the debt trying to bankrupt the treasury. Doesn't it seem that way to you? The same way they spread the military too thin so they could outsource it to Haloburton & blackwater & kbr, which all happen to be the same companies, run by Chaney and his buddies. How dumb are American voters? McCain you want? HA!!! He's a maverick? He was in Warshington even when Reagan was president.

Reagan $200 billion deficit
HW Bush $300 billion deficit
Clinton, $200 billion surplus
GW Bush $482 billion deficit

Facts are facts.

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Reagan $200 billion deficit
HW Bush $300 billion deficit
Clinton, $200 billion surplus
GW Bush $482 billion deficit

Facts are facts.

All you need now are some facts.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

You'll note that during every year of the Clinton presidency the federal debt increased.

 

[jillian]

All you need now are some facts.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

You'll note that during every year of the Clinton presidency the federal debt increased.

Really? Perhaps you need some visual assistance interpreting the raw data.

 

[sealybobo]

All you need now are some facts.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

You'll note that during every year of the Clinton presidency the federal debt increased.

Clinton balanced his budget. He didn't pay down the debt. By design, the debt will NEVER be paid off. All our income taxes do is pay down interest on the national debt.

JP Morgan, Rockafellor & Carnege started the Federal Reserve. The more we go into debt, the more the people that own the Federal Reserve today benefit.

Bail out the banks? Sure, just put it on the debt. Everyone except the people of this country win.

 

[dilloduck]

Clinton balanced his budget. He didn't pay down the debt. By design, the debt will NEVER be paid off. All our income taxes do is pay down interest on the national debt.

JP Morgan, Rockafellor & Carnege started the Federal Reserve. The more we go into debt, the more the people that own the Federal Reserve today benefit.

Bail out the banks? Sure, just put it on the debt. Everyone except the people of this country win.

What does Obama plan to do about the fed ?

 

[HoleInTheVoid]

Clinton balanced his budget. He didn't pay down the debt. By design, the debt will NEVER be paid off. All our income taxes do is pay down interest on the national debt.

It was a budget projection. PRO--JECT-SHUN...a thing of the future...right up there with flying cars.

But then Kennedy had to have his No Child's Behind Left Alone Act.

Bush wanted to curry favor with the nanny-staters with his Rx Drug plan; much to the dismay of conservatives who rightly predicted the budgetary debacle it was to become.

Then we have social security, medicaid, medicare, etc etc etc which will never see a reduction in budget let alone an actual reduction...the fact that they aren't even enumerated in the Constitution notwithstanding.

And then there's this whole matter of a war. I know, I know: the wife-beating, head-sawing, baby-bombing sand rats wouldn't be trying to kill us or anyone else for that matter if only we had elected Al Gore and fixed global cooling...or is it the whole in the ozone...or was it over-population...no wait deforestation...no, no WARMING! That's it, global warming. (sorry, I tend to lose track.)

JP Morgan, Rockafellor & Carnege started the Federal Reserve. The more we go into debt, the more the people that own the Federal Reserve today benefit.

It's a conspiracy!

Did you know Ben Franklin debunked the theory of "fiat" money?

Bail out the banks? Sure, just put it on the debt. Everyone except the people of this country win.

Not a conservative plan.

Conservatives have been saying the gov't has no place bailing out people who signed mortgages they new they couldn't afford or bailing out banks that made piss-poor business decisions to give loans to people they knew couldn't afford them.

Yet, I seem to remember some nitwit on TV recently claiming how anyone who didn't want the gov't to help the people who made bad borrowing decisions--and by silent extension: the banks that loaned them the money--were heartless bastards.

What was his name again?

 

[editec]

Obama will send us into a Next-Gen Depression. You can bank on that.

Depends.

Mccain might win, then he'd likely be the POTUS in office when it happens.

The elements for a tremendous financial meltdown are already in place.

I'd guesstimate we've got about a 50% chance of one happening in the next 8 years.

I doubt it would make all that much difference which person gets elected in that regard.

 

[sealybobo]

What does Obama plan to do about the fed ?

Probably not much. Obama will balance his budget only. Maybe not even in the first two years, because our infrastructure is collapsing. Bush ignored America and spent all our money on defense buddies and wars for 6 years and then stopped the democrats from 2006 to now from spending any money on America, so America needs a face lift. But in his last two years, he'll balance his books.

And Obama will add years onto Social security, rather than emptying the kitty like Bush did. If SS was good until 2080 under Clinton, Bush put that number to 2040, and Obama will put it back to 2080. He won't try to bankrupt it like McCain will. McCain even admits wanting to privatize it. 80% of Americans oppose that idea.

I don't think the debt can be paid off in 2 terms. He won't add to it like the last three Republican presidents did. You have nothing that suggests he will.

If you want to go with past performance, it is safe to say McCain will double the debt.

But the debt will grow just because of the interest we pay on the national debt. You need to look into Ron Paul or utube Freedom to Fascism. If you want to fix the debt problem, you have to go with those guys.