Flamingbaby

Wow...I think you gave me another reason not to vote for either candidate:Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts: a bigger deficit. The Tax Policy Center estimates that over 10 years, McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.

Yeah, that does suck, it also shows how far the GOP is from their "low spending, balanced budget" roots. I get really annoyed when people who are for lowering spending talk about the GOP, it hasn't lowered spending once in my lifetime, the opinion that the GOP is fiscally conservative is a HUGE pipedream.

I mostly posted this to respond to the comment you made earilier in the VP thread: (emphasis added by me)

To make it clear, I definitely don't think McCain's economic policies are better than Obama's. I would prefer the lower taxes brought about by McCain, but without a change in spending policies, the nation's economic situation will only get worse.

I will always prefer lower taxes overall as opposed to higher taxes overall. But, as you have pointed out, I don't think either candidate is viable choice with their spending policies.

So hypothetically, if a candidate came out with a plan to not tax the rich or poor at all, but to tax the shit out of the middle class, but the overall tax receipt was lower you would be for that?

All other things being equal, I would be inclined to vote for that individual...correct. Of course, it would also depend on the other candidates tax plans and whether those candidates were running a deficit with their budget plan. Ideally, taxes should be decreased 'across the board'...which is exactly what McCain's tax plan does. Granted, until the $66K income level, the decrease in taxes are not as significant as in Obama's plan, but a tax decrease is still present on all income levels. This is why I would prefer McCain over Obama on this issue, however, as I have already stated, I can't support either candidate's budget plan since that would me a significant increase in national debt. Neither partisan candidate looks to rid the government of wasteful programs. In today's federal environment, there is too much spending on too many useless programs that shouldn't exist in the first place. Decreasing the size of the federal government will also decrease the cost of the federal government. The constitutionality of many aspects of the federal government has been a big issue for me in this election. I know you're focusing on the 'tax' portion of the budget plans, but it is the 'spending' portion of the budget plans that has me the most concerned.

According to the analysis by the Tax Policy Center, Sen. John McCain’s tax plan would add $5 trillion to the national debt over 10 years while Sen. Barack Obama’s plans would increase the national debt by an estimated $3.4 trillion over the same time. I think this is the same study you referred to. Evidently, this "authoritative analysis" was released this week.

I was fond of this statement:The campaigns disputed the findings in a sometimes-heated exchange Wednesday at the Tax Policy Center.

"You could not be further from the truth," said Austan Goolsbee, the senior policy adviser to Obama's campaign. "If this is not wrong, nothing's wrong."

He said the report wrongly made it look as though the two candidates were similar in both proposing big increases in the national debt. He said that Obama would reduce annual budget deficits and the national debt, but he wouldn't specify how that would happen.I love the claims of politicians who say what they will do but won't describe how they will do it.

It looks like along with war, both candidates will give us more national debt as well.

Doug Holtz-Eakin, the senior policy adviser to the McCain campaign, countered that McCain would be able to eliminate the annual deficit by 2013 because his tax cuts would create more jobs and stir economic growth. "This is the first step to getting the deficit under control," he said.

But the Tax Policy Center study said that McCain's budget deficits would offset the economic stimulus effects of his policies, resulting in no net spur to growth.
I like better when they just make up something and try to pass it off as truth.

It is a bummer than neither has balancing the budget/paying off our debt as any kind of priority. I even heard the other day (on Glenn Beck, so it may be BS) that the gov is tanking the dollar on purpose as a way to ease the amount of interest we have to pay on the debt.

Sad fact of the day, we spend 260 billion a year on the interest from our national debt, more than 4 times the amount spent on the VA

America's $53 trillion jumbo loan

This is just scary:But this is just one "mortgage" that the federal government (i.e., taxpayers) must meet. It owes on all the deficits it has accumulated over the years (the national debt), and it has jumbo liabilities to come in the form of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Adding all those liabilities together, the government has dug itself into a $53 trillion fiscal hole – the equivalent of $175,000 per person living in the United States. If the White House and Congress continue to follow the do-nothing plan, in another 30 years or so the federal government will spend more than twice as much as it raises in taxes.
Neither McCain nor Obama seem to be acknowledging this problem... which is a huge reason why I'm not voting for either of them. Their suggestions do nothing to solve the actual problem:But Washington won't be able to tinker its way to paying for the government's retirement and health-care obligations – by far the biggest fiscal drains. Only fundamental reform of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid can move America to dry ground.It's like both candidates are ignoring how much our nation is spending.

McCain and Obama on Social Security and Taxes

For once, the liberals at AlterNet present a line of reasoning I can accept. I disagree with the conclusion, but at least I can respect the logical line of reasoning.

FTA:Since Social Security's inception, workers have received benefits that are roughly linked to the taxes they've paid into the system. This element of fairness is what keeps the program politically popular, and prevents it from being viewed as welfare. Would some future commission on Social Security go along with adding such complexity -- let alone changing the basic bargain that has served the program so well, for so long? Probably not.I'm glad that a liberal point of view finally addressed this issue and the unfairness of paying more into a system and not receiving an increase in benefits... especially since this system is supposed to be insurance for retirement and the increased funds being put in the system could be used for an actual retirement plan.

Personally, I'm still a supporter of privatizing the system so it is less dependent on tax dollars. Increasing the retirement age would be at least a temporary solution, but I think it would merely delay the inevitable. I can't argue that it would buy us more time to figure out a more permanent solution however.

Very good article. Most of the time I criticize AlterNet, but it's a good thing I keep reading and try to have an open mind about opposing point of views.

After proposing a tax plan that would give the United States one of the highest tax rates in the industrialized world, Barack Obama is beginning to shift his position.

FTA:In 2009, the United States might be just emerging from a nasty downturn, only to get hit by a tax increase. Also, recent research shows that tax hikes may be less harmful if accompanied by spending cuts. Yet Obama is planning huge and specific spending increases matched by often vague spending reductions. Clintonomics was all about balancing the budget. This is not a priority for Obama.Yes, I am giving credit here to Bill Clinton for balancing the budget (even if I still disagree with his spending policies).

I'm glad Obama may be "moving towards the middle" on the tax hikes, but I wish that he would see that spending is the actual problem.