McCain and the Budget

[Vermouth]

Senator John McCain is pledging once again to balance the budget by the end of his first term in 2013, his advisers said Monday, reverting to an earlier pledge he had abandoned in April when he proposed a series of costly tax cuts for corporations and high earners and said it might take two terms to balance the budget.

This is a ballsy move. McCain doesn't have any proposals to cut spending other than eliminating earmarks - an admirable but vague idea that borders on the unrealistic. He presents himself as the non-"big government spender," but when you get down to it his proposals on mortgage bailouts and healthcare incentives will cost a lot of money! Meanwhile, he wants to decrease tax revenue.

Jason Furman, Obama's economic policy director, called McCain's pledge “preposterous." Furman pointed out that the Congressional Budget Office now estimates a 2013 deficit of $443 billion, assuming the Bush tax cuts are extended. And he estimated that McCain would have to cut discretionary spending—including defense—by roughly one-third to bring the budget into the black by then.

"McCain would have to pay for all of his new tax cuts and other proposals and then, on top of that, cut an additional $443 billion from the budget—which is 81 percent of Medicare spending or 78 percent of all discretionary spending outside of defense," Furman said.

[Peter1469]

Of course McCain is not going to slash the federal budget by 1/3.  If I believed that he would he would have my vote. 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

so in providing a non-biased assessment of little mac's economics, vermouth relies on the bo camp.   i don't believe that the size or scope of govt is going to shrink with little mac at the helm.  but i know that it will surely explode with bo.  does lowering taxes decrease tax revenue?  should any argument re the debt center around increasing taxes as opposed to decreasing the size of govt??   

[Peter1469]

To control the debt you must lower taxes and lower governmental spending. 

[spunkloaf]

Government control needs to shrink, and government debt will follow.

[Peter1469]

That is certainly not a liberal attitude! 

[spunkloaf]

That is certainly not a liberal attitude! 

But that is certainly the conservative misconception.

Liberals are against government control, and it is NOT only when it favors liberals.

Most liberals want what is best for everybody, just like most conservatives.

[Peter1469]

I guess that we have to get on the same sheet of music.  When I use the term liberal (unqualified) I am referring to the common understanding of the word in American politics today.  Here is a professor’s biased definition of the word:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610100318oct10,0,1779585.story

The problem with this definition is that liberals use the power of the State to achieve these goals.  That is why I say that modern American liberals believe in more government control.

I too am a liberal.  A Classical Liberal.  The political philosophy our our Founders and the true founding priciples of the conservative movement started by Barry Goldwater and continued by Ronald Reagan.  And which appears to be currently asleep. 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

describing the conservatism of reagan as "currently asleep" is charitable.  the republican party for whatever reasons have effectively killed conservatism in govt.

[spunkloaf]

I would welcome conservatism if it didn't promote trashing people's rights for the sake of preserving other people's morals.  Other than that, I find nothing wrong with it.

[Vermouth]

so in providing a non-biased assessment of little mac's economics, vermouth relies on the bo camp.   i don't believe that the size or scope of govt is going to shrink with little mac at the helm.  but i know that it will surely explode with bo.  does lowering taxes decrease tax revenue?  should any argument re the debt center around increasing taxes as opposed to decreasing the size of govt??   

The Obama spokesperson was just citing the Congressional Budget Office.

Nobody believes McCain is going to balance the budget. McCain has no serious proposals to cut spending.

[Peter1469]

I would welcome conservatism if it didn't promote trashing people's rights for the sake of preserving other people's morals.  Other than that, I find nothing wrong with it.

That is the fiscal conservative movement- the descendant of classical liberals of the 18th century. 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

cbo estimate is based upon current levels and trends in spending

[Feuillade]

I guess that we have to get on the same sheet of music.  When I use the term liberal (unqualified) I am referring to the common understanding of the word in American politics today.  Here is a professor’s biased definition of the word:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0610100318oct10,0,1779585.story

The problem with this definition is that liberals use the power of the State to achieve these goals.  That is why I say that modern American liberals believe in more government control.

I too am a liberal.  A Classical Liberal.  The political philosophy our our Founders and the true founding priciples of the conservative movement started by Barry Goldwater and continued by Ronald Reagan.  And which appears to be currently asleep. 

Liberalism in America now resembles progressivism during the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations. Pre-Wilson liberalism resembles modern libertarianism.

Off-topic: Ronald Reagan’s win in 1980 is considered by many to be the victory Barry Goldwater failed to achieve in 1964. But mind you, Goldwater became disgruntled over Reagan and the emergence of the Religious Right in the Republican Party. Barry Goldwater was a classical liberal. Ronald Reagan was a big government neoconservative. There’s a difference.

[Peter1469]

I agree with you about Goldwater.  I however, think that Regan only used the religious right as a voting block.  His submitted budgets were not bloated- they were however, dead on arrival at the House.   His budgets were not relevant because they were never used.  It was his VIP and his son who went on the Big Government spending spree.