New President Won't Have an Easy Time Paying for New Initiatives, Fiscal Experts Say

[Miller101]

Originally Posted by 724Skinsfan

I see an error in your post. There, I fixed it for you.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

The weakest argument is the one that says, "Whe he made the commitment to public financing he didn't know how much money he could raise." This is like saying, "When I married my wife, I didn't realize the twenty-two year old former cheerleader was going to move in next door".

Geez - that completely misrepresents what I said. It's an absolutely valid argument, not to mention a strong one. If the goal is to avoid corruption, how does this fail to do that?

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I also find it interesting that everyone says that BHO will not be beholden to his contributors. I thought his contributors were all mom and pop salt of the earth types, so wouldn' he want to be beholden to them? The idea that Democratic givers are intrinsically more virtuous than Republican givers is an assumption the media is making that should probably be looked into.

This is such a fundamentally flawed argument. It's not about being beholden to the interests of all of his contributors. It's about being beholden to the interests of a small percentage of his (or any politician's) contributors simply due to the size of their contribution (either directly or through bundling or other fundraising). That's not what is happening here.

Originally Posted by 70Chip

In addition, Obama made the argument that he needs the money to head off GOP 527s at the pass.

I haven't heard this statement. This is the weakest argument by Obama - anyone with an ounce of foresight could see this coming, and, if it was a concern, he should not have made the pledge.

That said, the reasons I outlined above make this no worse than McCain's reversal on drilling (which I did not blast him for, either).

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

It doesn't destroy his word, but it doesn't necessarily help the cause of all those who defend him by simply saying "He says he's going to bring about change." That's great, but what has he actually done? When you ask the supporters that, too many are left with a blank expression. Which is a shame, because there actually is some stuff (in the brief time he's been in public office) he has done. Seems to me though that several of his supporters can't say much beyond "Well he said..." And I suspect that's in large part due to the fact that a lot of his supporters are young, first-time voters who are just now becoming interested in politics and elections.

Technically, this is change - nobody in the past 30 years has turned down public financing

If you mean the "business as usual" of money in politics, then I see your point, although I don't think it extends to his general platform of looking into new approaches. Whether you agree with it or not, he's offered alternatives in foreign policy (meeting with leaders w/o preconditions) and domestic (elimanating the income tax for some, per above).

Of course, he also has very little record at the national level, so it's easy to demand examples that you know can't be delivered (I mean the royal "you", not you, personally, SS).

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

You could have made your point without editing my text. That's a bad road to start heading down.

True. While he's probably correct, Obama has proven to be especially untrustworthy, whether we're looking at his words or his judgement.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by saden1

No shit, Bush and Co. really stunk up the joint. Taxes will have to be raised and belts will have to be tightened. Hopefully there will be fiscal discipline. I do love McCain's fuzzy plan though...continue the war, cut taxes, cut 100 billion dollars in pork even though 18 billion is spent on pork, and of course rely on American ingenuity to solve our problems.

Wow. What an intellectual argument.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

No shit, Bush and Co. really stunk up the joint. Taxes will have to be raised and belts will have to be tightened. Hopefully there will be fiscal discipline. I do love McCain's fuzzy plan though...continue the war, cut taxes, cut 100 billion dollars in pork even though 18 billion is spent on pork, and of course rely on American ingenuity to solve our problems.

I'd say it would be easy to find 100 billion in pork and they could double that figure. How much pork spending is added each year and how many of them are on going year after year?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Buster

Wow. What an intellectual argument.

and pretty one-sided. both candidates want to spend spend spend, but neither one has a viable plan as to how they plan on paying for it.

fixing medicare and social security, since they consume an ever growing piece of tax revenues, should probably be the first target. no one wants to hear that though.

maybe just make them like FEGLI (gov life insurance), where you don't have to use it, and it's retardedly expensive, but it's charges enough to pay for itself.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I'd say it would be easy to find 100 billion in pork and they could double that figure. How much pork spending is added each year and how many of them are on going year after year?

i highly doubt there's 100billion in pork, and it doesn't grow like federal budgets either.

no one likes the idea of building bridges to nowhere for a tiny village worth of people (which, last i heard, got thoroughly shot down), but the truth is that congress loses more money through accountability lapse in big budget contracts (aircraft, cost+ deals, etc) than they lose in pork.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

and pretty one-sided. both candidates want to spend spend spend, but neither one has a viable plan as to how they plan on paying for it.

fixing medicare and social security, since they consume an ever growing piece of tax revenues, should probably be the first target. no one wants to hear that though.

maybe just make them like FEGLI (gov life insurance), where you don't have to use it, and it's retardedly expensive, but it's charges enough to pay for itself.

If financial planners (or other in the same line of work) did with customers money what the gov. has done with SS they would be in jail. SS should have plenty of funds but they have been robbed over the years and now is in trouble. This is something tha both parties have done so its not an issue who has caused the problem.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Buster

Wow. What an intellectual argument.

Thank you.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

and pretty one-sided. both candidates want to spend spend spend, but neither one has a viable plan as to how they plan on paying for it.

fixing medicare and social security, since they consume an ever growing piece of tax revenues, should probably be the first target. no one wants to hear that though.

maybe just make them like FEGLI (gov life insurance), where you don't have to use it, and it's retardedly expensive, but it's charges enough to pay for itself.

What's McCain's plan?

p.s. I don't claim to be a McCain fan and I in fact despise his policies and everything the republican party of today stands for. I am not impartial with respect to McCain but when I post something about him I post the truth. You are more than welcome to defend him if you feel I'm being disingenuous or inaccurate in any way.

[firstdown]

On SS he wants to make a % available for people to set up private accounts if they choose to. He also thinks that we may have to increase the salery cap for SS. Right now we pay SS tax on income of $102,000 (that may be off by a little) and any income over that is not subject to the SS tax.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

What's McCain's plan?

p.s. I don't claim to be a McCain fan and I in fact despise his policies and everything the republican party of today stands for. I am not impartial with respect to McCain but when I post something about him I post the truth. You are more than welcome to defend him if you feel I'm being disingenuous or inaccurate in any way.

the only thing i think is disingenuous is how you bash mccain relentlessly and totally omit any mention that obama is no better on the issue of how the f do we pay for things.

i mean, you're right that he plans to spend more than we have, but you mention him by name an awful lot and don't say a word about how obama has exactly the same plan (spending on lots of trinkets, like homeowner bailouts, universal health insurance, tax cuts, and no way to pay for it).

i really don't have a strong personal attachment to either, since they both seem to be pandering and promising things they most likely can't deliver.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by That Guy

the only thing i think is disingenuous is how you bash mccain relentlessly and totally omit any mention that obama is no better on the issue of how the f do we pay for things.

i mean, you're right that he plans to spend more than we have, but you mention him by name an awful lot and don't say a word about how obama has exactly the same plan (spending on lots of trinkets, like homeowner bailouts, universal health insurance, tax cuts, and no way to pay for it).

i really don't have a strong personal attachment to either, since they both seem to be pandering and promising things they most likely can't deliver.

Well to be fair Obama did say he wants to cut taxes so people making $50,000 or less a year would pay no federal income tax. He plans on doing this by increasing taxes on people making $250,000 or more and doing away the Bush tax cut for the rich.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Well to be fair Obama did say he wants to cut taxes so people making $50,000 or less a year would pay no federal income tax. He plans on doing this by increasing taxes on people making $250,000 or more and doing away the Bush tax cut for the rich.

Now that I think about it he plans to pay for everything by taxing the rich. I'm sure they don't mind paying for everything and sending Uncle Sam 50% of their pay check.