quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Gee Phil, that's odd, all the 9/11 hijackers were middle class muslims and more than a few of them were college educated.

.......and those who opposed slavery and did something about it were also middle class. The thing is, history shows, that when the poor suffer it is frequently middle class people who try to do something about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

The funny thing is, the only area that Obama wants to give numbers on are some of his spending.  10 billion here, another3 billion there, etc... 
Talking  about paying for these things there was an amendment offered on the senate floor talking specifically about Obama's spending proposals, and asking how they were going to be paid for.

Fiscal Responsibility Statement Amendment presented Mar 12, 2008, by Sen Allard:

quote:

Sen. Obama has offered 188 campaign proposals that would add up to at least $300 billion in new annual spending. That has a 5-year cost of more than $1.4 TRILLION.

 

Of the 188 new spending proposals, the $300 billion price tag only covers 111 proposals. There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number.

 

This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President’s FY 2009 budget.

To put this in perspective, this $300 billion spending proposals would cost more than 42 states’ budgets combined (general fund expenditures). It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net). It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever.

Who will pay for the proposed $300 billion increase in spending? Middle-class American taxpayers and small businesses (which are the engine of growth for our economy), that’s who. Raising taxes on just the "rich" simply won’t cover it.

 

Under Pay-Go budget rules, new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or tax hikes. The CBO budget baseline already incorporates the extra revenue due to higher tax rates, so the end of the Bush tax cuts won’t pay for the proposed spending and still satisfy Pay-Go.

 

Senator Obama has promised to pay for his record new spending increases with a tax increase on families making $250,000 and over. However, this increase would only yield $225 billion over 5 years, a far cry short of the $1.4 trillion required under his new spending plan.

The scary part is those are only the proposal as of March, and as you can see there is only a price tag on 111 of the 188 proposals.

Edited to fix quotes...

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Gee Phil, that's odd, all the 9/11 hijackers were middle class muslims and more than a few of them were college educated.

.......and those who opposed slavery and did something about it were also middle class. The thing is, history shows, that when the poor suffer it is frequently middle class people who try to do something about it.

Please tell me you're not trying to defend 9/11 as some kind of noble gesture to bring light to the suffering of the poor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


Obama has proposed a withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months should he be elected.  The 5-year cost of the war has been estimated at $685 billion.  That's direct costs alone and does not include the costs in Afghanistan.  If you combine that with the $255 billion by raising taxes on the top 1% of earners that leaves $940 billion.  Considering that a large majority of the proposals will never become law, the 5-year figures are well within each other.  Not to mention he always has the option of withdrawing proposals that do not fit the budget.

Speaking of budgets, Bush has been notorious for deliberately excluding the costs of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from the Pentagon budget figures and submitting seperate bills to finance the wars.  Any comparisons of Bush's proposed budget has to take that into account.

Just wondering why you never ask the same questions of McCain?  He has committed to remaining in Iraq, along with the subsequent costs.  He has not only proposed keeping the Bush tax cuts (after opposing them for years), he has proposed further cuts heavily favoring the top 1% of taxpayers.  Corporate tax rates would drop from 35% to 25%.  He would not only keep the Bush limitations on the estate tax but raise the exemption from $3.5 million to $5 million in 2009 while decreasing the rate from 45% to 15%. 

So tell me, where is this money going to come from? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife


Obama has proposed a withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months should he be elected.  The 5-year cost of the war has been estimated at $685 billion.  That's direct costs alone and does not include the costs in Afghanistan.  If you combine that with the $255 billion by raising taxes on the top 1% of earners that leaves $940 billion.  Considering that a large majority of the proposals will never become law, the 5-year figures are well within each other.  Not to mention he always has the option of withdrawing proposals that do not fit the budget.

Speaking of budgets, Bush has been notorious for deliberately excluding the costs of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan from the Pentagon budget figures and submitting seperate bills to finance the wars.  Any comparisons of Bush's proposed budget has to take that into account.

Just wondering why you never ask the same questions of McCain?  He has committed to remaining in Iraq, along with the subsequent costs.  He has not only proposed keeping the Bush tax cuts (after opposing them for years), he has proposed further cuts heavily favoring the top 1% of taxpayers.  Corporate tax rates would drop from 35% to 25%.  He would not only keep the Bush limitations on the estate tax but raise the exemption from $3.5 million to $5 million in 2009 while decreasing the rate from 45% to 15%. 

So tell me, where is this money going to come from? 

First, the exact savings are going to be up for debate as both candidates have proposed a surge in Afghanistan.  The troop drawbacks in Iraq are happening whether Obama takes office or not, and even Obama has admitted that the drawdowns would be based on "the situation on the ground" now.  Suggesting that McCain is going to keep the entire force in Iraq is at best pandering.

So you are suggesting that part of the money to pay for Obama's spending proposals will be coming from repealing the Bush tax cuts?  Would that not be considered raising taxes?  Oh and I think those tax cuts affected all tax brackets (including making it so that some folks were paying no taxes at all).  I am sure that those that were removed from the tax rolls will enjoy having to pay some taxes again, good way to help the poor and middle class.

Redistribution of wealth is not a strategy I will even fathom getting behind.  We have discussed estate taxes around here a few times, my position is really simple THE DEATH TAX NEEDS TO BE COMPLETELY REPEALED.  If you or I or anybody is able to build up a decent estate, by working hard, paying taxes on it all as you are building that wealth, why the fuck should the heirs have to sell off part of it or pay more taxes on it just because we have died?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyboy4U

I don't think this election will be close. Obama will run away with it most likely. Polls tend to exclude young people who are overwhelmingly for Obama. As of right now I'd be willing to bet Obama really has at LEAST a 15% lead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyboy4U

I don't think this election will be close. Obama will run away with it most likely. Polls tend to exclude young people who are overwhelmingly for Obama. As of right now I'd be willing to bet Obama really has at LEAST a 15% lead.

That would be a false assumption.  As the polls are weighted and not direct reflections of the actual votes.  They take into account the number of folks that don't have landlines, and add what they consider would be the a "fair" figure into the modelling.  That being said, traditionally Dems poll about 10% higher than they receive in the actual vote, and Reps tend to poll lower than they actually receive at the voting booth.

Secondly, you are assuming that the youth vote is going to do something it has never done, show up on election day.

And finally you are assuming there will be no Bradley effect in these polling numbers.

Too, if your hypothesis was correct about not reaching Dems, why is it that the national polls show Dems up 15% over Reps?

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyboy4U

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

quote:

ORIGINAL: cuckyboy4U

I don't think this election will be close. Obama will run away with it most likely. Polls tend to exclude young people who are overwhelmingly for Obama. As of right now I'd be willing to bet Obama really has at LEAST a 15% lead.

That would be a false assumption.  As the polls are weighted and not direct reflections of the actual votes.  They take into account the number of folks that don't have landlines, and add what they consider would be the a "fair" figure into the modelling.  That being said, traditionally Dems poll about 10% higher than they receive in the actual vote, and Reps tend to poll lower than they actually receive at the voting booth.

Secondly, you are assuming that the youth vote is going to do something it has never done, show up on election day.

And finally you are assuming there will be no Bradley effect in these polling numbers.

Too, if your hypothesis was correct about not reaching Dems, why is it that the national polls show Dems up 15% over Reps?

so you're basically agreeing with me and calling me incorrect. lol

yes, those that phone only phone LAN lines which is way I added a conservative 7% for Obama since most young DO NOT USE lan lines.

And secondly, there is youth being involoved in record numbers and very motivated. The youth vote will show up in VASTLY greater numbers than before if not break records. Don't believe it? Would you be willing to bet some money on it? No, right?   So yea it's a pretty safe assumption

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

I am not supporting McCain.