Excellent new ad that puts the blame for the Fannie/Freddie mess where it belongs, at the feet of the Congressional Democrats. McCain's campaign should be running this in all the battleground states, these people are the reason for the mess and even Bill Clinton knows it and isn't afraid to admit it. They need to be voted out of power for the mess they are making with out economy:
(via)
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
i think that you overstate the stimulation that the top 1% of the richest of the rich actually give to the economy. it's rarely these 1% who start new industry that drive job creation.
"If Bush's tax policies can be separated from the spending on a war that few people wanted and fewer people want to fund (IF they can be separated), we might see that the deficits come from the war, not the tax code."
"might," but wouldn't. in 2005, there was still a $370B deficit without considering iraq spending.
bush has constantly excluded war spending of afghanistan and iraq from the federal budget to obscure the real cost and its damage to the debt. he shifts money from this to that, borrows and borrows and borrows. "cooking the books" is what it's called in the business.
And it should end. Iraq is why many (former) Republicans I know are voting Obama.
There's a reason for the term "neocon". We want a true conservative, and since there isn't one available, McCain is way closer than Obama.
"There's a reason for the term 'neocon'. We want a true conservative, and since there isn't one available..."
i'll give you that much. but with obama, you have at least a tax plan that will damage the federal debt less than mccain's. go figure.
you also end up with someone who's health care (really health insurance) plan is more comprehensive and more effective (yes, i've read the link that you provided, even before you provided it). but since clinton is no longer a candidate, here is another analysis that compares obama's plan to mccain's:
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4911E220081002
read the analysis at www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=707948
I noticed once again the reference to the CBO projected 10 year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion that was issued in January 2001, at the end of the Clinton administration. Just a quick read of the 5 page summary included in the 190 page report and you will see the CBO said the budget may return to deficts without any policy chabges by the next president. How can this be? The $5.6 trillion surplus was based on the historically high tax revenues to GDP associated with the dot-com boom and the high tax to GDP ration was assumed by the CBO to continue for the next 10 years. As we now know the dot-com boom was a bust before Clinto left office. Therefore the biggest assumption in the 2001 CBO report proved to be an invalid assumption. Also, the CBO is required by law to project expenses without taking into consideration any demands associated with an increase in polulation. The CBO is non-partisan, but it still must follow the budgeting laws dictated by congress. There has been and continues to be considerable desception associated with the $5.6 trillion surplus budget projection. http://youtube.com/reportcard2000
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.