The Spending Evolution of Barack Obama

Henke is simply a propagandist for McCain. His material is oftentimes simply an extension of McCain's web sheets.

Sadly, most of the material here is strictly one-sided, "us against them" kind of thing. Our puff piece against their puff piece, our exaggerations pitted against their exaggerations. No serious thinking on the larger issues of the political process itself.

It's as if they are all trying desperately to get noticed by someone on the McCain staff so they can be asked to work for him.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Speaker of the Dead, what an apt name for a RonPaultard.  Hey, your cult leader has lost; too racist and too nasty for anyone but the tinfoil hat crowd. You wanna Ron Paul's plan?  He's gonna kill you and everyone you love. 

It just seems to me that here, there should be at least some attempt to apply a yardstick of reality to both candidates when it comes to government growth and taxes.

I don't mind you going after Obama. The man is an insane liberal, who has a plan to spend trillion of dollars gotten from somewhere, somewhen [sec]. But McCain's budget calls for trillions spent as well. At least Obama is consistent...he is a tax and spend, liberal democrat. We all know that.  I don't even know what McCain is really when it comes to sinking this nation and it's future into even more debit.

McCain has been inconsistent in proposing tax plans in the past as well. His criticism of the Bush tax cuts was, to say the least, troubling.  He first spoke out against Bush's proposed tax plan in January of 2000, arguing: "I don't believe the wealthiest 10% of Americans should get 60% of the tax breaks. I think the lowest 10% should get the breaks."  McCain then went on to vote against Bush's tax cuts in both 2001 and 2003, explaining: "When you look at the percentage of the tax cuts that -- as the previous tax cuts -- that go to the wealthiest Americans, you will find that the bulk of it, again, goes to wealthiest Americans... A lot of Americans now are paying a very large a -- low and middle-income Americans are paying a significantly larger amount of their income in taxes. I’d like to see them get the bulk of the relief."

At present, every child born today is already in debit to the tune of approximately $31,000. That's what every new baby in America owes at birth, and every month of that child's life, he or she will owe $325 in interest alone on that debit. That's $1500 a month for a family of four just to meet the interest payments.  While we go around patting ourselves on the back, calling ourselves the party that "cuts taxes" the truth is, paying the "interest" on that national debit is the second largest item in the federal budget. For those who may have missed this point, that is a "TAX".  It is paid for from our tax dollars, and it is rising daily. Because of this debt, we pay more in taxes every single day, or we can "cut our taxes" and pass on even more debt to our children's future. 

And that's not even the worst of it. In fact, I wouldn't mind those numbers if government growth were somehow curtailed enough to significantly cut taxes, stimulate the economy and increase federal revenues to pay that debit -- you know, Reagan style. But that's not what's being proposed by either candidate to any appreciable degree. So another plan has been cooked up to raise our taxes, allowing for yet even more government growth. But this time it's different. This time this tax increase will be done without the peoples' knowledge or consent. We will just simply print more money as a form of borrowing from the furture without even telling anyone. It's a neat trick; isn't it?  The only problem with this taxing scheme is oil. You see, it's purchased in dollars. As a result, inflation has inevitably crept back into our economy, putting the nation's ability to pay back the growing debit with a robust, every expanding economy in doubt -- and this nation's creditors get nervous when they see our economy not growing enough to protect their own investment.

The economic viability of our Republic, this nation and its people is a subject that is simply too important to be used as a campaign stick to beat the other guy over the head with, while shielding our own from scrutiny. When this happens you may think you are helping the cause, but you are really only making it harder for the people to ask the right questions and get the right answers to prepare them for the important choices they will have to make to protect the Republic and our precious liberty.

You want a tax and spend strategy that will work you guys? Here, I'll give it to you, free of charge...adopt a fair or flat tax, either one. If it is a flat tax, don't tax individual wages, tax only corporate profits.

How much should corporations pay under a flat tax? 

I haven't a clue. Let the corporations, their lobbyists and Congress work that out.

If it is a fair tax (sales tax), no more than 10%.

ex animo

davidfarrar