So... we must govern a whole country by what obviously DOESN'T work in the cities??

So... in short.... Obama is proposing about $50 billion a year in actual new spending and about $50 billion in tax cuts.

lol!!!!!

It's fascinating how people who actively and rabidly supported Bush - the president who has actively pursued torture, illegal partisan patronage and expulsion of government employees, extraordinary rendition, the suspension of habeas, illegal domestic wiretapping, spying on Americans abroad and at home, the undermining of free speech and press rights, the undermining of due process rights, the general trashing of the doctrine of separation of powers, the unilateral executive prerogative to ignore the law, and a general veil of unaccountability and secrecy on its own actions

lol

Small towns are wonderful places... but most of the population of the United States lives in cities and an even larger percentage of our wealth as a nation is created in cities.

And unfortunately, we can't govern the whole country according to what works in a small town.

But you are right... part of Obama's plan is to reduce your health care premiums and then increase government spending which will lead to new direct or indirect taxation.

That said, it is not as if he is talking about taking productive resources from, say, job creating activities and diverting them to something else. He is just talking about pooling resources already spent, but spend badly, and making it more efficient.

It is sort of how we pool resources to pay for a police force rather than each of us having to individually arm ourselves. Or pooling resources for fire departments rather than each of us investing in fire fighting equipment.

"New Spending" in this context actually refers to "new Government spending", and don't forget that there is nothing you can do for a dollar, that your government can't do HALF as well for a thousand.

So you contend that government spending your money on your behalf is eqivalent to you spending it for yourself, Why not then just have the government confiscate all income and let the them make all your decisions for you, since it would result in "no new spending".....

OH! That IS the ultimate plan???

Shades of Roseanne Roseannadanna!!NEVERMIND!!

Obama's tax cuts are relatively small in the aggregate since he does increase taxes on the wealthy. The average American will save like $200 a year under Obama, but that is because folks in the upper brackets will pay a lot more. McCain's average tax cut is around $1200, but most of it goes to people making more than 250k. But the point is, McCain is start off with 6x more aggregate tax cuts.

Now, Obama's spending plan -- the so-called $850 million in new spending. Let's break it out a little. A bit less than 1/2 of that is his tax cuts... So... look... McCain is talking about roughly 3x more "new spending" than Obama by that measure. But it is a dumb measure. I hate calling tax cuts new spending.

So, we're left with $500 billion in "new spending" under Obama over 4 years. Some of that is, in fact, a free lunch, only because it is simply about reallocating where money comes from a goes. $350 billion -- more or less -- would go to Obama's health care plan. But much of that money is ALREADY being spend -- just not always by the government. It is being spent in higher premiums by health care plan holders and indirectly by anyone using health care due to the need to fund uninsured emergency care, etc. So yeah, in this case, we don't have to invent new economic growth assumptions to off-set that money. It is money that is already being spent in the economy that he want to allocate more effeciently. You can debate whether his plan will do that... fair enough. But calling it outright new spending is simply wrong.

Which leaves, something like $150-200 billion in real new spending -- most of it on investing in new energy. Obama claims that will promote new green jobs and grow the economy. It may, but probably not since it is just moving funds around from one place to another. In all likelihood, achieving greater energy independence would have strategic benefits, but likely not that many economic ones.

So... in short.... Obama is proposing about $50 billion a year in actual new spending and about $50 billion in tax cuts. McCain's proposal is around $300 billion a year in tax cuts alone. McCain is very vague on actual spending cuts, and both candidate claim like $100 billion in various efficiency savings that will never materialize. McCain wants to freeze spending on like 10% of the budget, although even that is fuzzy. Give him the benefit of the doubt and between that and earmark reform, he squeezes $40billion a year out of the budget. So, Obama's plan is $100billion a year out of whack, McCain's $260 billion.

You just can't compare the two plans in terms of fiscal responsibility.

No, what we can't have is continuous tax cuts

And a look at the income at the federal coffers seems to sugegst we've not had continuous tax cuts.

Of course, Obama is promising one -- for 19 in 20 people, anyway. He states, repeatedly, that the bottom 95 percent won't have to pay any more.

This is by no means a free lunch. Paying "no more" is not at all equal to "none."

Of course, Obama is promising one -- for 19 in 20 people, anyway. He states, repeatedly, that the bottom 95 percent won't have to pay any more. So, all the new spending will be paid for by "the rich."

Yes, but it's that one out of 20 that makes the difference. You can't give all 20 people lunch without any of them paying, but you can give 20 people lunch with one of them paying.

Besides that; the hypothetical was a commentary on the projection of public image by the propagandists, not a slight of Obama himself.

"" "Axelrod's Puppet" is a vacuous A-hole,""
Now THAT is a comment on the candidate himself!
See if you can perceive the difference.

Neither comment is an endorsement of Bush,who,BTW is not a candidate in this election anyway.

Or maybe, you know, because people realize that promises of a free lunch are unrealistic?

Of course, Obama is promising one -- for 19 in 20 people, anyway. He states, repeatedly, that the bottom 95 percent won't have to pay any more. So, all the new spending will be paid for by "the rich."