Let's boil the presidential selection down to one issue, the biggest issue going – the economy. We teeter on the edge of economic disaster. Forget about party affiliations for a minute. Forget about Republicans and Democrats. Forget about political ideology. Forget about Bush. Forget about Congress. Let's just focus on which candidate's policies will do the most to get us out of this mess, and back to prosperity. We only have a choice between these two men to lead us.
First, let's set the grim economic scene. Our government is trying to pass a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry at the taxpayer's expense. Our country is approaching a $10 trillion national debt, soon to be $11 trillion. We have $53 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities, with Social Security and Medicare about to overwhelm us financially. We owe $500 billion to the Chinese. The government passed a $150 billion stimulus package this year. We are fighting two wars, which will probably end up costing $1 trillion. We are sending $700 billion per year overseas to meet our energy needs, to countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Our budget deficits are ballooning to their highest levels ever. In the financial crisis, we have already spent $29 billion to buy the bad paper from Bear Stearns. We paid $85 billion for 80 percent of the insurance company, AIG. We're paying $200-300 billion to bail out and nationalize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is proposing a second stimulus package, with a price tag of $65 billion. The House Of Representatives just passed a spending bill for $630 billion that contains $25 billion in loans to the automakers, along with 2,322 earmarks that total $8.8 billion. We are spending money at a staggering and unprecedented rate, and we don't really have any assurances that all the spent money will reverse our financial problems. Fiscal insanity has run rampant. This is big government on steroids, and it's scaring the heck out of me. It should scare you too. I've never witnessed anything like this in my lifetime. It HAS to stop.
And we have two presidential candidates debating last night, John McCain and Barack Obama (here is a transcript of the debate). The first series of questions asked of these two candidates by moderator Jim Lehrer (excellent job, Jim) were about the financial crisis.
The first candidate, John McCain, proposed to cut spending, cut earmarks, reduce defense spending, freeze all spending other than essentials, scrub every government department for waste, cut business taxes to make our businesses more competitive and stimulate job growth, and provide tax credits to help people buy their own health insurance.
The other candidate, Barack Obama, is proposing $800 billion in new spending. Obama couldn't identify even one area in which he would reduce spending, despite being asked several times by Lehrer. He just gave a vague response about maybe reducing an unspecified something. When asked repeatedly what he would cut, Obama instead went off on a litany of all his new spending INCREASES (pre-school, health care, energy, infrastructure, etc). Obama said all his new spending is paid for, which means he has to raise taxes by $800 billion. He wants to give the middle class a tax cut. He railed against business tax breaks. Every one of Obama's proposals increases the size of an already enormous and bloated government bureaucracy, and will take money out of the private sector. Those are anti-growth policies. Obama did mention savings from ending the Iraq War over a 16 month period, but that war is pulling down anyway, so I don't see a substantive economic advantage in choosing Obama over McCain there. Besides, Obama wants to ramp up the Afghanistan War. I call the war issue a push at this point.
So, we have one candidate, McCain, who is promising to scale back all the big government spending in light of all our economic problems, and another, Obama, who is only promsing more and more big government spending that has us all about to choke to death. If you didn't like the big spending policies of George W. Bush, you sure aren't going to like the big spending policies of Barack Obama. McCain's path is the saner path.
Seriously, folks, how can you vote for Barack Obama, especially at a time like this ? If we don't stop this crazy spending train we're on, we are screwed, and so are our children. There's no other way to put it. Barack Obama not only doesn't want to stop the crazy train, he wants to stoke the engine and speed it up. Obama's path is the insane path.
Vote for John McCain. Please. One thing I will agree with Obama about. This is a defining moment. We can't afford to get this election wrong.
McCain knows a lot more about foreign policy too, which should have been made clear to all last night.
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
I realize that Republicans, this election cycle, don't have much to offer. With that in mind it's understandable for King to ride his one-trick pony in this post.
Spending is King's one-trick pony. King, and the Republicans, never taught their pony any other tricks.
Republican rule has given us the largest deficits and national debt in history….so, how is McCain, the Republican in the race, even credible on spending? He isn't.
It's not spending, per se, that is the problem….it's prioritizing. McCain wants to bloat the already-bloated defense budget as well as hand more tax dollars, Bush-Cheney style, to the richest in America.
Ride that one-trick pony all you want to….McCain's, and the GOP's, policies are now entirely bankrupt.
Gotta go with the Rev, King. How can you honestly believe that a R is the best thing if economy is the one issue? The last 20 years have proved that if there is one party that is fiscally responsible, it is the Ds. The R party no longer stands for the principals it was founded on. Senator McCain can say he's the one who would restore it, but it's just talk to get votes, made clear by his record and by the neocon he chose as a running mate. Anyone who let another R continue what the Bushies started is a fool and is not voting based on the issue of the economy.
Obama should have said "..well, there's that $10 billion a month going down the toilet in Iraq…."
King, I don't think these people read what you wrote. It seems to me that each of them managed to see what they would have seen if you had written only one word, no matter what that word was.
Now Rev Red, King didn't mention the approximately $80 billion per year over the next 10 years for UN buyouts for third world countries nor did either candidate last night, but the facts are still there. Obama wants to tack this amount each year onto all the other "programs" he lists as necessary, no matter what.
With the above items on the table for Obama I just can't see how anyone could think that McCain could spend more than Obama. Actually it appears we all are ignoring the fact that all either of them can manage is to go along with the Congress, you know that bunch that is so hell bent on bailing out those financial agencies that have done themselves in. Whichever one we get will have to deal with those people who are so desirous of a bailout that sounds so very unDemocratic.
The way I see it, the economy mess America is in today is not anyone's fault but the voters. We voted in Bush and his cronies so we got what we voted for. Bush first term, shame on him. Bush second term, shame on him and us. Bush/McCain third term – shame on us, PERIOD.
Beverly is spot on.
roy: I know you ride a different one-trick pony from King…..but it's still a one-trick pony.
Trying to change to subject, understandable from conservatives, to some tangential slam against the U.N…..Republicans constant whipping boy….is transparently an attempt to change the subject away from the old codger's poor and contemptuous showing last night.
Right Rev. I'm a one-trick pony. The economy ISN'T important. This insane government spending DOESN'T mean a thing. Let's just fiddle while Rome burns. Let's cling to our prejudiced little sound-bytes ('McCain is a Bush 3rd term', 'Obama is for hope and change') instead of even considering the impacts of any policy these candidates would bring us. Let's pretend like all the economic problems I described in my post are ALL the fault of George Bush. Let's pretend that it isn't primarily the Democrats who have us facing the $53 trillion tsunami of SS/Medicare liabilities. Let's pretend it wasn't the Democrats who shot down Fannie-Freddie reform, which led directly to the financial crisis. Let's pretend it wasn't Democrats who loved the Community Reinvestment Act, and it wasn't a Democrat who signed Gramm-Leach-Bliley into law with bipartisan support, when those two legislative acts created the environment for the financial crisis. Let's pretend it isn't Democrats who want to dole out a second $56 billion stimulus package. Let's pretend it isn't Democrats who are more in favor of the $700 billion bailout that Republicans are, by far. Let's pretend Barack Obama isn't proposing massive tax and spending increases. Let's pretend that it isn't John McCain who would hold spending and earmarks down relative to Obama. Let's pretend Democrats aren't presiding over the current congress, who will give us the largest single year deficit in history. Let's pretend it isn't Democrats who want to bailout the automakers to the tune of $25 billion. Let's pretend Obama hasn't committed to upping the bailout of the automakers to up to $50 billion. Let's pretend that it isn't Democrats who have restricted our access to our own energy supplies that has resulted in us sending $700 billion overseas to buy our energy from foreign countries. Let's pretend it wasn't mostly Democratic cronies who cooked the Fannie-Freddie books and downplayed the ever increasing threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our entire economy.
Yes, let's just pretend. Let's just mouth meaningless stupid sound-bytes and engage in silly attacks instead of actually addressing the facts and the issues. Let's just bury our heads in the sand, and hope our wonderful all-powerful government overlords takes care of us po' folks. Never mind the fact that those same government overlords got us po' folks into all this in the first place.
And Rev, McCain doesn't want to increase the defense budget. He wants to cut it. He said so during the debate. Obama is the one who has said he wants to increase it. Maybe you should pay attention a little instead of mounting your meaningless sound-byte attacks about nothing.
Roy,
I don't think the Rev ever really reads what I write. If he does, he must have some type of cognitive problem.
Thanks for mentioning Obama's Global Poverty Act giveaway to the UN. I forgot about that one. There's nothing like handing over another big chunk of our taxpayer dollars to the UN to illustrate our out-of-control spending problem even more. The Rev seemed to miss the point of that also.
da truth,
You say McCain is just saying what he's saying to get votes, implying that McCain is lying. But McCain's record backs up his words about reducing spending, just as Obama's proposals for big tax and spending increases are backed up by his record. That leads me to believe you aren't really evaluating the merits of the proposals of these two candidates, you are just looking at the 'R' and the 'D'. It sounds like somebody sold you on the 'McCain=Bush' idea simply because you want to believe it, even though it isn't true. I could make a very strong case for you that Bush is more like Obama than he is like McCain, but you'd have to look beyond the party affiliations, which is seems you aren't willing to do.
The reason why what you're saying is not persuasive is because we've all seen this movie before.
The GOP regime of Reagan-Bush1 left America deregulated and deficit enslaved. Simply a fact. The GOP regime of Bush2 has continued deregulating and enslaving America even more with deficits.
And now, Mighty Mouse McCain, this year's GOP entry, promises us the 2nd sequel won't be the same.
It's simply unbelievable. No thinking person would believe it.
We need the adults back in Washington. Obama-Biden are the only adults in the race.
King,
I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that your last 2 votes for president have been for a Republican. As far as I can see, you really don't have a good track record at picking one that is good for the entire country, unless you think we are in better shape than we were 8 yrs. ago. Sorry, just can't take you seriously with that kind of track record.
Independent, I can see that you're not independent at all.
Funny how everyone blames the last 8 years on George Bush when if Clinton would have defended our country and took action on Bin Ladin, and he hadn't built an economy destined to fail(based on websites and beanie babies. That's all we had, he sent the rest to Asia and CHina) we wouldn't be in the shape we are in.
Just like Senator McCain said, you just don't get it, you just don't get it.
Independent,
No, my last two votes for president were not for a Republican. Your limb broke.
I always love it when people tell me I'm not credible, but don't offer any evidence whatsoever to contradict anything I said.
Yes We Can. Hope and Change.
King,
Check how how Stanly Kurtz has linked B. Hussein Obama to the mortgage mess via BO's close association with that quasi-criminal group ACORN.
Obama is truly a radical.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm?page=0
King, if anybody on this post looks beyond party affiliations, it's me. It's certainly not your men who always say R= good and D=evil.
If you want to believe that a man who has shortchanged the Treasury by half a trillion in tax giveaways for the rich after blowing through 200 billion a year or more in Iraq and after allowing Haliburton and Blackwater to get piles of cash and lost hundreds of billions in negotiating Medicare gifts to the drug industry and who has handed Wall Street trillions of dollars is going to get out his Veto pen and save the world, you keep believing it. John McCain is a shell of the politician he was in 2000. The beat down George Bush on him turned him into just another R trolling for votes. King, he won't even answer questions on the campaign trail.
You're talking out both sides of your neck on this one. In one breath, you want to say its all the Ds fault and then you turn around and say the government overlords are keeping us down. I certainly know you are smarter than to imply this has all happened since january 2007. And isn't it convenient for you to blame anything bad that happened in the 90s on the D president, but when its an R president it's all Congress' fault? Please. Your credibility is wearing thin.
This whole economic mess can be trace back to the Keating Five. Featuring which Arizona Senator?? Anyone??
Please tell me we are not going to start citing the NY Post as credible?? Ugh.
ACORN is a radical organization that engages in vote fraud. That is without question. They have been indicted for vote fraud in about 11 states.
da truth,
I don't think you've been listening to me. I don't think the mortgage crisis or our current economic situation is all the Dems fault, I'm just pointing out the part that IS the Dem's fault to offset the notion that it's ALL Bush's/Republican's fault, as Dems would like us all to believe.
And you still haven't offered a counter argument to anything I've said.
McCain was exonerated in the Keating Five scandal. You're grabbing at some real thin straws there. You also failed to mention that the other four of the Keating Five, the ones who really WERE guilty, were all DEMOCRATS.
Vince,
And the Dems were trying to funnel money to ACORN as part of the financial bailout. That's all I need to know about Democrats right there. Thank God that provision was removed.
Only an ignorant fool can deny that B. Hussein Obama was involved with ACORN .
In fact, BO ran training seminars for ACORN.
King, isn't it amazing how the libs and Dim wallow around in ignorance?
King, you haven't said anything. The last time this country believed an R we got "compassionate conservatism." How has that worked out for us? All you are doing is parroting McCain's statements……which are just that, statements.
As for your bracelet statement in the other post, the family asked him not to mention their name. He felt, rightfully, that if McCain was going to make it personal, he should too. The soldier's mom said after the debate she had no problems with what Obama did. He was clearly taking a moment to decide if he should mention the name of the kid. Contemplation, rather than shooting first and asking questions later.
And sure, McCain wasn't found "guilty" of anything in Keating like his D colleagues, since being reprimanded by the United States Senate for "poor judgment" doesn't mean anything.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-brooks25-2008sep25,0,5467109.column
(if he can cite the ny post, i can cite the la times!)
"This is enemy action. This is a bullet deliberately fired into the economy by men willing to exercise their ideology regardless of the cost to taxpayers. Men who have every expectation that they can plunder the system again and again, while the public picks up the tab. John McCain may not have had his finger directly on the trigger, but he was there. He assisted. These were his personal friends and philosophical comrades. He may not be the high priest, but he has been a loyal acolyte in the cult of deregulation.
It may come as a surprise to the champions of deregulation, but nobody likes regulation. The restrictions that were placed on banks, S&Ls, and other institutions in the 1930s weren't put there because someone thought it would be fun. They were put in place because they addressed problems that had just been clearly and painfully revealed. They were put in place because they were necessary.
It's bad enough if John McCain didn't know that. It's far worse if he did."
-Devilstower 2008
Fundamentally Sound?
We owe China $500 Billion
The Republican administration (This includes McCain and his past economic advisor Phil Gramm) had six years of full reign in Washington. The result is obvious. Our country faces a HUGE deficit. We have been spending money in a very expensive store (The Iraq War) and saying that no one had to pay for it. Under the republicans many wealthy American companies and their CEO's have eluded paying their fair share of taxes by an array of loop holes. We have been borrowing money from China to finance a war and buy oil from the Middle East.
Right now we owe China 500 billion.
How did we get into this position?
I guarantee the wealthy CEOs of this country are not altering their vacation plans.
I have a friend that has the reddest neck you ever saw. He says that "My grand dad always told me no matter what the Republican Party is for the wealthy.” No matter what smokescreen they try to blow the NRA, Religion. Gay Rights. Their one main purpose is to protect the wealthy. The Republican administration (This includes McCain) had six years of full reign in Washington. The result is obvious. Bush said no tax increase and as a result our country faces a HUGE deficit. That would be like going shopping in the most expensive store (The Iraq War) and saying that no one had to pay for it. Great no taxes but have been borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Middle East.
Again
I guarantee the wealthy CEOs of this country are not altering their vacation plans
What da truth said.
da truth,
You keep insisting that John McCain is lying. I don't know why you keep saying that, but those who know him, and pretty much everyone in Congress on both sides of the aisle, say he is an honorable man. You are just choosing not to believe McCain, evidently because of that 'R', and because of Bush. That really doesn't make much sense. You are choosing to disbelieve one man because of another who shares the same party. I believe the word for that is stereotyping. I disagree with McCain on many issues, but I believe the man is sincere.
I don't care about the bracelet controversy. I didn't say a word about that. I just thought it was funny that Obama couldn't remember the soldier's name. There's your sincerity, or the lack thereof..
And thanks for that opinion piece from the LA Times, I thought it was pretty humorous. John McCain co-sponsored legislation to regulate Fannie-Freddie, as I've already pointed out. The Dems killed it. The LA Times is just making stuff up to run cover.
Here, let's disprove this deregulation nonsense for once and for all. Point me to one act of deregulation of the financial markets by the Bush administration. That will shut me up. Bush only proposed REGulation, in spite of the hysterical lies of the Democrats.
LITTLE RED HEN
She called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'
'Not I,' said the cow.
'Not I,' said the duck.
'Not I,' said the pig.
'Not I,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did. The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.
'Who will help me reap my wheat?' asked the little red hen.
'Not I,' said the duck..
'Out of my classification,' said the pig.
'I'd lose my seniority,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my unemployment compensation,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread.
'Who will help me bake the bread?' asked the little red hen.
'That would be overtime for me,' said the cow.
'I'd lose my welfare benefits,' said the duck.
'I'm a dropout and never learned how,' said the pig.
'If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination,' said the goose.
'Then I will do it by myself,' said the little red hen.
She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, 'No, I shall eat all five loaves.'
'Excess profits!' cried the cow. (Nancy Pelosi)
'Capitalist leech!' screamed the duck. (Barbara Boxer)
'I demand equal rights!' yelled the goose. (Jesse Jackson)
The pig just grunted in disdain. (Ted Kennedy)
And they all painted 'Unfair!' picket signs and marched around and around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little red hen, 'You must not be so greedy.'
'But I earned the bread,' said the little red hen.
'Exactly,' said Barack the farmer. 'That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle.'
And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, 'I am grateful, for now I truly understand.'
But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one cared…so long as there was free bread that 'the rich' were paying for.
IS THIS A GREAT BARNYARD OR WHAT???
King, you disappoint me. You find Vince's rantings and his cites from Ann Coulter valid but mine are "humorous"? You lose some credibility on that one.
I never called John McCain a liar, but he is.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccain-liar-who.html
Read on, the very conservatives now touting him as a savior just a few months ago called him a liar:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30563.html
So you call him whatever you want. I call him out of touch, even moreso than Joe Biden. And certainly you are not citing President Bush, whose very financial policies you yourself have called horrible, as suddenly the all-knowing economic Messiah? Your waffling on your candidate is reminiscent of a certain D Presidential candidate circa 2004……….
Even your precious Annie thinks he's a liar:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30563.html
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/30563.html
And now suddenly, King, you are putting up George Bush as compatible with fiscal responsibility? Yikes.
da truth,
You are distorting my words. I said Bush didn't propose any deregulation of the financial industry, while the Dems claim that he did, because they keep saying the Bush policies of deregulation for the last 8 years gave us this financial crisis. That is not true, and you didn't offer any proof to the contrary.
That doesn't mean I think Bush is wonderful in all fiscal aspects. I think his fiscal policy overall has been terrible, as illustrated by the huge debt he ran up.
And Obama DOES have close times to ACORN, just as Vince said. He worked for ACORN as a community organizer, and he also represented ACORN as a civil rights attorney. If you want to take issue with that, it is your credibility that will suffer, not mine.
I don't think McCain lied about either Palin's earmarks or the surge. Palin DID cut earmarks substantially as governor.
On the surge, the article you linked to says "'On the morning of Bush's address, Romney endorsed a troop surge.' — The National Journal, Jan. 13, 2007".
McCain, however, supported the surge far earlier, in 2006. Many came on board later. Supporting the surge was hurting McCain politically, but he still did it.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Novak_McCains_troop_surge_hype_backfiring_1227.html
average joe,
Nice story. Have you seen the bumper sticker yet that says "Vote Democrat, It's Better Than Working" ?
I've got a better story…
Three fat capitalists were asked if they wanted any regulations to protect the rest of us. All three said No, No, No….we don't want government interfering in our god-ordained capitalistic venture. We must breathe freely of the air of infallible and unfettered business.
Then, alas, the three fat capitalists found themselves with…empty balance sheets….caused by lack of oversight.
These same three fat capitalists came to all of us with open palms, begging us to rescue their pitifully failed ventures of unbridled greed. The three fat boys screech loudly…."we need government interference, we need government interference….for we have no more money".
Moral of story? Never trust fat capitalists.