For me this doesn't make sense.

According to the NTU, only Ron Paul and Rudy Giuliani proposed budget cuts.



Thus, it would be assumed the only way that the others would end up with a surplus would be if they taxed us more. McCain, Hillary, AND Obama have all promised not to tax us more.

I think the NY Times is wrong. In fact, Hillary and Obama would have to raise taxes so high to beat John McCain with the effect on the deficit. Please correct me if I'm wrong, and tell me why, because I don't know how the NY Times came up with their numbers.

I'm not surprised. Of course taxing the wealthy isn't "tenable" they know how to hide their money. I know, my job is to help them.

Neither do I. I don't think the NYTimes clearly stated how these numbers have been calculated... rather, they just seem to suggest that they "are."

However, in reading the whole piece, I have to say that DerAlt's choice of paragraph quote, leaves something to be desired. The article talks about all the candidates "plans" and how much that would raise the deficit... but the quote above seems to suggest only McCain's plan will suffer from this.

IMO, the first paragraph would have made for a better choice, as it describes the content of the article more fully, and addresses that this is a issue affecting all the current candidates:

But perhaps that’s just me.

Both Obama and Clinton would raise taxes tremendously. They want to make government even bigger than it is, addict more people to the drug of entitlement.

McCain may way to cut taxes too much, perhaps if he reduced government spending it wouldn't hurt so much.

somewhere in between might be the better place.

Of course McCain may want to reduce taxes but that doesn't mean he can get congress to go along with it.

Whereas Obama/Clinton would have a much easier time getting a democratic congress to follow their tax increases.

You also have to take the War into account. I am pretty sure that we are more likely to get out of Iraq with either of the dems since McCain seems to really love our presence in that country.

Right, but this is increased spending. This means that even if we got out of the war in Iraq, it would be filled with something else.

That's why Ron Paul's is in the negative, because he wanted to get out and fill it with nothing.

Oh I see what you are talking about, I was assuming this was the the increased spending, not the compilation of proposed spending and savings.

Well it's kinda both lol.

It's not the overall budget. But it is how much extra money these candidates are proposing to spend from what the budget is this year. So really, if Clinton and Obama didn't want to get out of Iraq they would have much higher spending.

What's particularly interesting is defense spending and domestic spending.

Domestic:

Defense:


Ron Paul is the only one that would decrease defense, which I find particularly interesting. Why? Well because ideally, the Iraq War should be costing so much that if we got out, we would be saving money. It just goes to show you that both Hillary and Obama are going to increase spending *that much more*.

Interesting. But if their 'unbiased' group is right and McCain would still increase our debt beyond either of the democrats... well I guess it doesn't leave us with much of an option.

Perhaps it is:)

The article states the story pretty clearly. It posts it's source and explains under what circumstances these figures would be accurate.

It assumes, for the sake of discussion and actually some cold reality, that McCain wants to keep Bushes tax cuts, add some of his own, continue the war without a cutoff and for the most part his "matching spending cuts," which he championed so much in his early career, will depend on successfully cutting out the earmarks attached to each bill.

Earmarks are the life blood of elected politicians. It's a terrible practice especially in times of severe deficit problems, but that won't be stopped anytime soon. Certainly not by McCain a man who will not have the full respect of all Republicans. Bush has railed against the practice for much of his tenure, one of the very few positives he can claim, with no success whatsoever.

The two Dems, like it or not, have promised to end the war and restore the tax cuts. Both measures that will not increase the deficit as much as McCain's plan.

The paragraph I selected was the meat of the story without any spin on it.

Gimmie a break 2 many, This is just political crap.

The Bush prescription drug plan is one of the most expensive entitlements to come along in years.

We do live in the real world. Things are going to happen in Government that we don't like, campaigns are going to use catchy mottos that don't really come to pass and unfortunately we can depend on most of the news we get that we don't like will be passed off as "Well, that's the NY Times, I can't accept that" then quote some "data" from somebody's blog.

I guess like the earmarks, that won't change soon either.

This is one issue that I am going to have to argue with you about. Earmarks actually do not add anything to a bill. They appropriate the money already set aside for the bill. For example, if there was a $1 Billion bill to hand money out to build levees, the portion set aside for New Orleans (say $100 Million) would be an "earmark."

Spending is set in the budget, not with the earmarks. Thus we can blame Congress for not providing a balanced budget and Bush for signing that unbalanced budget.

We can also blame congress for not ending the war as they vote to continue funding it every time. That includes Hillary and Obama.

That's what my first post was about. I don't understand how that's possible with all the extra net spending they are proposing. That's why I questioned the Times article, because everything else I've read shows differently.

Either the National Taxpayers Union is wrong or the Times article is wrong, and considering the usual bias of the NY Times, my guess is that they hand picked this "analysis" to be against John McCain.

Earmarks:Congress' year-end budget passed in December 2007 contains nearly 10,000 Congressional earmarks worth $10.4 billion, according to a comprehensive database compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense.[4] In addition, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, passed earlier in the year, contains nearly 2,200 earmarks worth $7.9 billion. The total Congressional earmarks for fiscal year 2008 numbered 11,780 worth $18.3 billion. This is a 23% cut in earmarks from the high in FY 2005, but falls well short of the 50% reduction House leadership set as its goal earlier in the year.[5](quoted from Wikipedia)

As regards the Times article to be political biased against McCain..."what else have you read" and what are their sources? Doubting the factual basis for an article should be supported. Do you have a reliable data source that refutes these findings?

Obviously Earmarking is costing taxpayers money...if it isn't then McCain isn't providing any cost cutting for his tax cuts.

Congress is not going to end the war by witholding war funding...the Dems would be commiting political suicide. Remember: "Support The Troops."

Even if it's killing them

I guess I should've explained further. To reduce earmarks, we also need to reduce the budget and return to a very limited federal government. Earmarks can change the budget a bit.

It's more of retarded earmarks that are the problem. By retarded I mean earmarks that are set aside "just because" for friends, etc.

National Taxpayers Union? The graphs I sourced earlier? Front Runners at least $7 Billion extra.

Spending Analysis for each candidate.

Yeah, well that's when the lives of people are more important than keeping your job. Frankly, I'm tired of politicians, as are most people, and I appreciate when an honest politician comes along.

There were three this year running for President and they were all marginalized.

Don't fool yourself, "Honest Politician" is an oxymoron. Doesn't exist in the real world, I don't care who they are, it's all a matter of degree.

That's the nature of the beast and it's been that way since mankind organized any kind of civilization. Congress, like every other governing body, operates on the "you help me I help you" system. You could never rise to any public office without favors from people with power and connections and therefore you "owe" them.

The spending analysis link only shows proposed spending by candidate but does not at all address the spending cuts proposed by each. Both Dems want to roll back the Bush huge tax cuts,and stop the war to minimize the cost while McCain wants more tax cuts, continue the expensive war and only offers the earmarks removal as a balancing effort. That's the point of the original article. In the long run his program is more expensive.

Actually it's just another 4 years of Bush.

Ron Paul. Haha. He's the exception though.

Well, when you go into the analysis of each candidate, it does take into account the iraq war ending...however the numbers don't translate into the chart, because the cost is "unknown". So, actually, I was wrong earlier...but Ron Paul, Hillary, and Obama will all have less spending than is shown.

Heh, we have our private conversation going :-)

Ron Paul was an interesting candidate. He did seem refreshingly more open than the others but I doubt he's not the product of "help" also.

He was too far off what the American psyche will accept in a president. I personally do not believe in a flat income tax or one based on sales tax it's too inequitable. The income tax system has been tinkered with many times over the years and sooner or later it comes back close to it's original form.

People have financial problems that need to be addressed tax wise, as one example, horrendous medical bills in any given year. I wish Ron Paul's program was a bit closer to what people will accept because I think he's a good man. I feel that Biden got screwed by the media also.

Actually, he used to sit alone in congress, has never received a penny from special interests, because they know he won't feel obligated to help them lol. If there's one person in D.C. that has a conscience, he's the one.

The only current republican to vote against the war. He is often the only vote against a bill, which shows true character. The Republicans in general hate him so much they go off and fund another guy, and he still wins 70-30. The democrats don't even run against him anymore.

I agree about Biden. He was actually my third favorite. I am actually for abolishing an income tax. It'll help everyone all around.

? I'm a bit confused. Which part(s) of my statement was crap?

1) Both Obama and Clinton would raise taxes tremendously. They want to make government even bigger than it is, addict more people to the drug of entitlement.
Both have announced that they have every intention of raising taxes, they just say they'll do it on the wealthy. Some of those taxes will directly effect middle class people as well, especially those who own stock either on their own or via pension funds and similar. Obama's wife caused another problem for her husband when she talked about some people having to give up their pie so that more people can have some.


2McCain may way to cut taxes too much, perhaps if he reduced government spending it wouldn't hurt so much.

I assume you agree with this statement. His tax cuts may be too much, depending on how much he cuts govt spending. Part of the problem as you mentioned is Bush is not a republican when it comes to economics and smaller government.

3.somewhere in between might be the better place.
Perhaps trying the middle of the road was wrong? We all know what happens to the person walking down the middle of the road.

4.Of course McCain may want to reduce taxes but that doesn't mean he can get congress to go along with it.

Whereas Obama/Clinton would have a much easier time getting a democratic congress to follow their tax increases.

This is accurate is it not? The president can have any "plan" he or she may want but unless Congress implements the plan it is just pie-in-the-sky ideas.

A president who is of the same party of Congress will tend to have an easier time getting their ideas approved.


So, please correct me where I was wrong. Which sentence/idea was crap?

Crap was a poor choice of words on my part, but it does describe the issue.

The supposition that Obama and Hillary will actually get all of their "political promises" past congress and get all the tax increases to support them is just partisan BS. "Tending " to have an advantage is pure spectualtion especially when the public is smarting over the record deficit we are facing.

In addition both Dems have included methods to reduce the cost of their plans that are likely doable....removing some of the outrageous tax cuts and stopping the bleeding of our dollars in Iraq. McCain is battling windmills in trying to get rid of earmarks. That effort has already been tried with no real results. McCain won't have the power and support he'll need to make a dent in it.

Your response stems from the fact that you are totally disregarding the data in the Times report with no better reason than you "doubt it." I don't see any kind of actual data that refutes the report...just what apparently is your gut opinion.

So, there is not much about the data of the original article that has been shown to be wrong. The fact remains that, all things being equal, the article is a reasonable analysis. Which is all it is intended to be...an analysis based on the candidates current political promises.