Stick a fork in this moron.

[digitaldean]

Look, changing the tax rates won't mean jack-crap if the feds don't CUT discretionary spending. The reason why the deficit is so huge is due to several factors, but the main one is that THEY SPEND TOO MUCH!

It's not the EEEEEEVIL Bush tax cuts, it's actions like the raiding of the Soc. Sec. trust fund plus all these new federal programs and "entitlements". When the baby boomers start retiring in the next few years, this problem will only balloon.

Government needs to come up with ideas such as means-testing Soc. Security (if you have enough assets on hand, you get either less paid out to you). With longer life expectancies and fewer paying into the Soc. Sec. system, the amt. of revenue to meet the obligations will dwindle. An even more effective idea would be to allow Americans the CHOICE of opting out of Soc. Security and into individual retirement accounts. Taking 8% off the top of my check (15% for self employed people) to a system we ALL know will die seems to be ludicrous at best.

Do we need to fund military bases in Korea, Germany and Japan? No. Even if we pare back to just 1-2 facilities in these countries, we could save significant tax revenue. It's not an isolationist view, it's a pragmatic view considering what the next several decades are going to mean to the U.S. economy.

[packinpatland]

Look, changing the tax rates won't mean jack-crap if the feds don't CUT discretionary spending. The reason why the deficit is so huge is due to several factors, but the main one is that THEY SPEND TOO MUCH!
It's not the EEEEEEVIL Bush tax cuts, it's actions like the raiding of the Soc. Sec. trust fund plus all these new federal programs and "entitlements". When the baby boomers start retiring in the next few years, this problem will only balloon.

Government needs to come up with ideas such as means-testing Soc. Security (if you have enough assets on hand, you get either less paid out to you). With longer life expectancies and fewer paying into the Soc. Sec. system, the amt. of revenue to meet the obligations will dwindle. An even more effective idea would be to allow Americans the CHOICE of opting out of Soc. Security and into individual retirement accounts. Taking 8% off the top of my check (15% for self employed people) to a system we ALL know will die seems to be ludicrous at best.

Do we need to fund military bases in Korea, Germany and Japan? No. Even if we pare back to just 1-2 facilities in these countries, we could save significant tax revenue. It's not an isolationist view, it's a pragmatic view considering what the next several decades are going to mean to the U.S. economy.

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit........

[digitaldean]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit

I am for scaling back operations in Iraq at a responsible pace. The strategic judgments on that I'd defer to the military commanders in the theater.

If they agree boots on the ground are better served in Afghanistan (or home), then great, phase down and withdraw.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit

I am for scaling back operations in Iraq at a responsible pace. The strategic judgments on that I'd defer to the military commanders in the theater.

If they agree boots on the ground are better served in Afghanistan (or home), then great, phase down and withdraw.

Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.

[digitaldean]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit

I am for scaling back operations in Iraq at a responsible pace. The strategic judgments on that I'd defer to the military commanders in the theater.

If they agree boots on the ground are better served in Afghanistan (or home), then great, phase down and withdraw.

Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.

Look, I'm in favor of controlling ALL spending, not just military spending. There are some practical things that will have to be addressed (over the next few years).
-Cost effective replacements for the B-52 which is beyond ancient technology
-Replacements for the F-15 and F-16 which were started in the 1970s
and that's just for starters.

Reshaping how we fight future conflicts politically and militarily will greatly affect this. If we citizens do nothing re: staying informed on these topics and keeping on our Sens. and Reps. in DC then we deserve what happens to us. We can blame DC all we want regardless of who is in office. But if we as a nation have a passive approach on this and only get involved when it reaches crisis stage, then we have no one to pissed off at except ourselves.

[HowardRoark]

Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008

Shouldn't this be a percentage, not a number? I am interested in the point, but it doesn't make sense.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......it will raise the deficit

I am for scaling back operations in Iraq at a responsible pace. The strategic judgments on that I'd defer to the military commanders in the theater.

If they agree boots on the ground are better served in Afghanistan (or home), then great, phase down and withdraw.

Military spending as a share of gdp is expected to grow by $75 billion in fiscal 2008, enough to neutralize a 0.3 percent decline in gdp. Dick Cheney was secretary of defense for Bush 41; just before the 1992 election he engineered a big run-up in outlays, as the military restocked following the first Gulf War. Is the Pentagon up to that trick again? I'd be astonished if it were not.

Look, I'm in favor of controlling ALL spending, not just military spending. There are some practical things that will have to be addressed (over the next few years).
-Cost effective replacements for the B-52 which is beyond ancient technology
-Replacements for the F-15 and F-16 which were started in the 1970s
and that's just for starters.

Reshaping how we fight future conflicts politically and militarily will greatly affect this. If we citizens do nothing re: staying informed on these topics and keeping on our Sens. and Reps. in DC then we deserve what happens to us. We can blame DC all we want regardless of who is in office. But if we as a nation have a passive approach on this and only get involved when it reaches crisis stage, then we have no one to pissed off at except ourselves.

We spend money on the military frivolously...i agree we need it, but we can't give them a blank check.

Nor do i approve of outsourcing the military to Halliburton with no bid contracts. And the fraud that is perpetrated against us by our contractors.

Nor do i approve of losing track of 9 billion in Iraq.

[HowardRoark]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

[MadScientist]

MadScientist, what evidence do you have that Obama intends to continue the Bush tax cuts as you say? This runs contrary to everything I've ever heard. Since you make so much use of these "truth squad" websites, some assurance from something with a reputation for objectivity would be nice.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm

If you scroll down a bit, you will find:
Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000
What's your source?

As for your other point, you stated you would prefer that the government take the massive money grabbed by the government from his "redistribution" tax increase for people earning over $250,000, and NOT use it to decrease taxes for people of income less than $250 or 200,000. First of all, regardless of what you or other "deficit hawks" want, it's safe to say it ain't gonna happen. Far more likely, given the rotten and liely to get worse DEm/lib majority in Congress is the scenario of that money going for massive new social programs--as that, after all, is what Obama-esque liberals are all about.

If you DID get your way, however, the result could be even worse. Paying down the debt has a dampening/deflationary effect on the economy. That would definitely be the third best of the three scenarios: tax cut--best, spending--second best, pay down debt--third.

1) I agree that something closer to straight tax increase (to levels that were not disastrous when they were in place) won't get passed in this climate. Note, don't bother blathering about dem spending, repubs spend just as much, they just like to go into debt (or deeper into debt) to do it.
2) In my post I recognized the need for stimulus with the tanking economy, which is why I mentioned keeping the cuts on the below 75K group, where most of the additional cash is likely to be spent, and spent right away.
3) My take is that the staggering debt and huge deficits are also a drag on the economy (higher interest rates, weaker dollar which is like a tax increase, without the benefit of potentially usful government spending). You act like debt and deficits are ways of getting free money. It also puts us at a huge risk - if China ever decides they can survive a collapse of the US economy, we are dead. Even if they don't do it, they'll own us.

[packinpatland]

You're right on this one....... we spend too much on a war we shouldn't be in.......

Why do you think we should not be in the war?

With the situation in Afghanistan getting worse, with Bin Laden still a threat, with no WMD's found.......we could have gotten rid of Iraq's big guy alot more efficiently without the 'shock and awe' war that was raised.

There is no doubt in my mind that Hussein needed to be removed. The proven atocities against his people left no doubt.

But where were we when Darfur, or Rwanda's people were getting slaughtered?

[packinpatland]

McCain suspends his campaign, wants to postpone the debate.
Then he gives a speech at The Clinton Global Initiative..........no less than 3 times he said "If I were elected President...."

As Letterman suggested..........why suspend the campaign? Send out your 2nd in command, your VP............alone ( ) to carry on.

http://utubecom.magnify.net/publish/search?term=david+letterman%2C+sept+24

[mraynrand]

McCain suspends his campaign, wants to postpone the debate.
Then he gives a speech at The Clinton Global Initiative..........no less than 3 times he said "If I were elected President...."

As Letterman suggested..........why suspend the campaign? Send out your 2nd in command, your VP............alone ( ) to carry on.


http://utubecom.magnify.net/publish/...man%2C+sept+24

In McCain's announcement yesterday he said he was suspending his campaign but would give that talk. I's a political move of course, bu ton two fronts - to make himself look better in the campaign and to actually go to Washington where he has a track record of bipartisan accomplishments (for better or for worse).

Why don't you just write in 'Letterman' on your ballot?

[packinpatland]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/25/1445868.aspx

COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie -- that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.
COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?
PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

[Scott Campbell]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/25/1445868.aspx


COURIC: You've said, quote, "John McCain will reform the way Wall Street does business." Other than supporting stricter regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac two years ago, can you give us any more example of his leading the charge for more oversight?
PALIN: I think that the example that you just cited, with his warnings two years ago about Fannie and Freddie -- that, that's paramount. That's more than a heck of a lot of other senators and representatives did for us.
COURIC: But he's been in Congress for 26 years. He's been chairman of the powerful Commerce Committee. And he has almost always sided with less regulation, not more.
PALIN: He's also known as the maverick though. Taking shots from his own party, and certainly taking shots from the other party. Trying to get people to understand what he's been talking about--the need to reform government.
COURIC: I'm just going to ask you one more time, not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?
PALIN: I'll try to find you some and I'll bring them to you.

Why don't we let them all go on Jeapordy, and the winner gets to be President?

[HowardRoark]

I think that McCain suggesting that they both go back to Washington is brilliant. Call the "post partisan" candidate's bluff. What in the hell has Barack ever done in Washington, or Springfield for that matter?

Barack says he will continue to campaign. Shocking. That's all he has ever done. Maybe he can write another book about himself and see if that helps.

I can see him now in these crucial debates......his one ace in the hole will be to say in a whiny voice, "come on."