Comments on: A Deficit Disorder

By: Andrea

Andrea — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:13:08 +0000

Da King if you really want to better the economy here not over seas you would want the government to spend on infrustructures such as repairing bridges and levees , this gives us jobs right here at home. You also want to put more money into the people who will spend it ..the middle class and poor. I will get a bigger tax cut under Obama than McSame. Not ever person earning over 250 k will hire someone or is in the position to. Most have enough toys already so their money will sit. Most do not need the extra 5 k McCain will give them for health care either. Give the money to the middle class and they will be spending it. Give us jobs like fixing railroads ,schools leaky roofs and will will get us going again. What the economy needs is more jobs here so why not start with fixing the roads instead of fixing Baghdad.
Paying taxes is patriotic it supports are economy so we can fix things and employee people .

By: Ghost of Vince Foster

Ghost of Vince Foster — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 10:23:36 +0000

"On tax cuts, you shouldn't believe everything the NY Times or the Obama camp tells you. They tell a lot of lies, you know. "

It is the nature of Dims and liberals to lie as a way of gaining power, and it is the nature of fools like Rebecca to believe the lies. By doing so, both the Dims and the fools feel better about themselves.

By: Da King

Da King — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:20:33 +0000

Andrea,
I didn't forget anything. If you would have read my original post, I already stated that both McCain's and Obama's plans were estimated to add trillions in new debt by independent analysts, but those analyses were made BEFORE McCain proposed to freeze government spending, slash military spending, and other reforms, so those numbers are outdated and inaccurate. Those numbers only take into account McCain's tax and health care proposals.

Paul Krugman not only favors Obama, he favors EVERY Democrat over EVERY Republican. He's purely partisan. He's a liberal, and without doubt the worst economist I have ever run across.

On tax cuts, you shouldn't believe everything the NY Times or the Obama camp tells you. They tell a lot of lies, you know. McCain's tax cuts are NOT just for the rich. They are for business, and that includes all business, big or small. The idea there is to stimulate business to create jobs and make America a more inviting place for businesses to start. McCain also wants to increase the child tax credit and give refundable health care tax credits, which will benefit everyone, including the middle class. My major problem with Obama's tax cuts are, like I said before, that almost half of them go to people who don't pay taxes, which makes them welfare, not tax cuts. Obama is being dishonest. I wish he'd just tell the truth instead.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:27:57 +0000

Da king , you failed to take into account a few things. And please feel free to google this info , for you will see I got it correct.
Senator Obama’s plan would add $3.3 trillion to the national debt (including additional interest costs) while Senator McCain’s plan would add $4.5 trillion.
So that means Obama CAN afford to spend more and still not pass Mccain in debt. …
I think what bothers you is in priorities Mccain money goes in to the hands of the rich Under Obama goes into the middle class.
When it comes to economy I like to hear what the experts have to say Paul Klugman for instance ..who favors Obama . But here is an article that might interest you . More economists feel Obama will do a better job.
http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?STORY_ID=12342127

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:48:56 +0000

Ben,
Thanks for straightening out the Rev.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:46:32 +0000

da truth,
Thanks for the kind words. I'm glad that you and I, on opposite sides of the political aisle, can agree on this. Now, all we have to do is get about 535 members of Congress to go along with us, no easy task.
McCain took at least some steps last night to address the spending problem during the presidential debate, and he pledged to balance the budget. It's a start, but if McCain gets elected, and he probably won't, we the people have to hold him to it. If Obama gets elected, and he probably will, I really don't have a solution. Even after McCain promised to balance the budget last night, Obama didn't, and he never has even adressed it. All he promises is to spend and tax, and the Dem majority in Congress wants the same thing. Listening to Obama talk makes me want to reach for the Maalox.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:31:42 +0000

Andrea,
I've ALWAYS been for controlling government spending, and I agree Bush has been a runaway train wreck on government spending. So would Obama be, and so is the current Democratic Congress. McCain, on the other hand, will try to stop it, as witnessed by last night's presidential debate. McCain pledged to cut military spending, freeze government spending, remove earmarks, go after excessive government with a hatchet and a scalpel, and veto any big spending legislation. Obama pledged to spend, spend, spend. The last thing ANY candidate should be doing during an economic downturn is to raise taxes, which slows the economy even more, and Obama wants to do that too.

McCain did pledge to balance the federal budget in his first term. Obama didn't, because he won't even try.

By: Da King

Da King — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:25:27 +0000

I urge everybody who reads this blog to watch the David Walker video linked to by Ghost of Vince Foster three comments prior to this one.

Outstanding, Vince.

By: Andrea

Andrea — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:40:13 +0000

So now you are concerned about spending ? Where were you in 2004 and who did you vote for ? The run away train wreck is my guess. No matter how many earmarks spending Mccain Vetoes with his pen his continuing the war will put us in a much bigger hole. Earmarks are chicken feed compared to the Bush deficit, and what is spent In IRAQ and on the military.

To even think Mccain can knock off the deficit in his term as President is laughable . Rolling back the Bush tax cuts on taxpayers making more than $250,000, and streamlining government through new technologies and getting OUT of Iraq will be the ONLY way to reduce the deficit! That is not in Mccains plans .

By: da truth

da truth — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 11:16:49 +0000

King, this may be your best post ever. I was all prepared when I saw the title to bust out my numbers about how historically over the last century it doesn't matter who's in office with spending, but you did it for me. Great post and absolutely should be the number one focus of this campaign cycle. Your point about a D in front of a D congress is well taken as well. That is the main reason to vote against Obama, and I am surprised McCain has not pointed it out more fervently.

By: Ghost of Vince Foster

Ghost of Vince Foster — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:48:14 +0000

King

Check out this 4 minute video. It's our boy David Walker talking on October 8, 2008 about the bailout. His point is that nobody is going to bailout the federal government which is just as broke as the banks which the government is now infusing with liquidity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LS44CxUJSg&feature=related

++++

By: ben keeler

ben keeler — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:33:42 +0000

It is welfare. how else to describe it? People who dont pay federal income tax getting a federal income tax refund check. That is welfare.

I have had my disagreements with Bush, along with my agreements. His biggest failure has been the runaway spending. His lack of fiscal discipline made the tax cuts, which worked, look bad.

By: The Reverend

The Reverend — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:24:14 +0000

Your comprehension of tax cuts is interesting.

Tax cuts for the wealthiest, you know, the only Americans who move and shake, are great and should always be considered a good thing.

Tax cuts for anyone other than the wealthiest, presumably the non-shakers and non-movers, at least if Obama's the one doing the cutting….is welfare.

Interesting.