Members dravenzouk Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 So, we've discussed the question of how Obama will pay for all his promises, now let's get to the question of how McCain would pay for his. Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative (and the good ones actually are), but all this "endless war" don't come cheap. 100 years (more?), etc., etc., and I haven't heard where the real money will come from. Has anyone heard anything concrete out of him yet? And, just to spice it up a bit more, check out this nice little vid:[YOUTUBE]3gwqEneBKUs[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jackcheez Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 What is the tab for 100 years of war ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 The military operating budget is largely based on corporate income taxes from the prior year. Some is borrowed, but that's where the majority of it comes from and the taxes allocated. So, I'd say the same place as every other president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members hi.flyer Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 The military operating budget is largely based on corporate income taxes from the prior year. Some is borrowed, but that's where the majority of it comes from and the taxes allocated. So, I'd say the same place as every other president. Corporate taxes? OH NOEZ! They'll just pass those onto the consumer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 Corporate taxes? OH NOEZ! They'll just pass those onto the consumer! You don't have to buy anything and propel the economy along, ya know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members burdizzos Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 I think McCain plans on selling the First Amendment to pay for the first ten years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members RSBro Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 I think McCain plans on selling the First Amendment to pay for the first ten years. I'm not sure how this guy really is even in the "republican" camp... Not that it really matters but he seems a bit off party base to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted February 11, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 Is this rocket science? Am I missing something? Everything that the US government does is paid for by the American people in the form of taxes. Regarding the 'nice little vid'; the ignored implication of withdrawing before the job is done is that it will cost more in the long run. That's not a concept Americans in general, and apparently liberals in particular, are familiar with. And really....does anyone in the vid know the definitions of 'hyperbole' and 'context'? Yeah, let's take "ten thousand years" literally.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted February 11, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 I'm not sure how this guy really is even in the "republican" camp... Not that it really matters but he seems a bit off party base to me. He's way off base. But not to worry, because Ron Paul is just waiting to spring into action. Any minute now. No really. He's got the most campaign dollars. They told me that meant he had lots of support, and could win the nomination. Seriously. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members #6 Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 My favorite part of this whole debate is that among the presidents since I was 10 years old, the republicans (reagan, bush 1, bush 2) have been the ones to spend huge amounts and create massive deficits, which the democrat (clinton) has run balanced budgets...yet, people still have the impression of democrats being the big spenders... mccain will pay for it like all republicans have...by making the kids pay for it...later, when hes dead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 What he said is partially true though. Mark my words, your kids will be serving in Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jackcheez Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 All I know for sure is that people like McCain who are committed for as long as it takes, better start talking about what their plan for a successful outcome there is. How and when are we going to get Iraq to the point where they have a functioning and secure government ? It's been five years now. The majority of Americans won't stand for an endless and obscenely expensive occupation. Which is as it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 What he said is partially true though.Mark my words, your kids will be serving in Iraq. Or Germany or Guam or Japan or Spain or Iceland or Saudi Arabia or Italy or any of the many many other overseas military bases we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMS Author Craig Vecchione Posted February 11, 2008 CMS Author Share Posted February 11, 2008 My favorite part of this whole debate is that among the presidents since I was 10 years old, the republicans (reagan, bush 1, bush 2) have been the ones to spend huge amounts and create massive deficits, which the democrat (clinton) has run balanced budgets...yet, people still have the impression of democrats being the big spenders...mccain will pay for it like all republicans have...by making the kids pay for it...later, when hes dead You left out the part where the Clinton budget was balanced with higher taxes. I can spend all that I want without putting anything on a charge card if my employer is willing to write me a check big enough to pay for it. And if Clinton's budget was balanced, did we have zero national debt during his tenure? Because if not, then it wasn't truly balanced any more than my checking account is balanced but I still owe $3000 on my Visa card... There's also the issue of timing. Clinton was in office during a period of extended good economic times, that collapsed beginning in late 1998. He got out just in time for Bush to inherit the first recession starting in the summer of 2000. Is either president to take credit or blame for this? What did Clinton specifically do that created a good economy or the impending recession? What did Bush do to create the recession that started shortly after he took office? People tend to be overly simplistic and blame/praise whoever is in office for the current economic situation, when the reality is that they have very little to do with it at all. Congress and The Fed, on the other hand...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members #6 Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 You left out the part where the Clinton budget was balanced with higher taxes. I can spend all that I want without putting anything on a charge card if my employer is willing to write me a check big enough to pay for it.And if Clinton's budget was balanced, did we have zero national debt during his tenure? Because if not, then it wasn't truly balanced any more than my checking account is balanced but I still owe $3000 on my Visa card...There's also the issue of timing. Clinton was in office during a period of extended good economic times, that collapsed beginning in late 1998. He got out just in time for Bush to inherit the first recession starting in the summer of 2000. Is either president to take credit or blame for this? What did Clinton specifically do that created a good economy or the impending recession? What did Bush do to create the recession that started shortly after he took office?People tend to be overly simplistic and blame/praise whoever is in office for the current economic situation, when the reality is that they have very little to do with it at all. Congress and The Fed, on the other hand...... so, by the same logic, reagan gets no credit for any gains during the 80's? ok, i'll go with that...but.... the gop also claims its more fically responsible, on of its core planks...but that is plainly a lie...also, they claim to be in favor of small govt, but the of the 3 presidents who most expanded the federal govt (FDR, Reagan, Bush2) two are GOP. My point is not that the dems are great, its that the republicans say one thing, and do another, and are never called on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 You left out the part where the Clinton budget was balanced with higher taxes. I can spend all that I want without putting anything on a charge card if my employer is willing to write me a check big enough to pay for it.And if Clinton's budget was balanced, did we have zero national debt during his tenure? Because if not, then it wasn't truly balanced any more than my checking account is balanced but I still owe $3000 on my Visa card...There's also the issue of timing. Clinton was in office during a period of extended good economic times, that collapsed beginning in late 1998. He got out just in time for Bush to inherit the first recession starting in the summer of 2000. Is either president to take credit or blame for this? What did Clinton specifically do that created a good economy or the impending recession? What did Bush do to create the recession that started shortly after he took office?People tend to be overly simplistic and blame/praise whoever is in office for the current economic situation, when the reality is that they have very little to do with it at all. Congress and The Fed, on the other hand...... Clinton inherited a post ressession from Bush I. Economy was on the upswing before he took office. Politicians take credit/place blame for economies but Congress has a lot more to do with the pursestrings and even that is less impact by far than the general businesses of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members jackcheez Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 When was the last time we saw this... WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses. http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/ Tax and spend > borrow and spend because you have to pay interest on borrowed money. In fiscal year '07 we (the taxpayers) paid $429,977,998,108.20 in interest alone on the debt. This fiscal year we are on track to beat that. That's 430 billion wasted tax dollars last year ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 Or Germany or Guam or Japan or Spain or Iceland or Saudi Arabia or Italy or any of the many many other overseas military bases we have. Except in Iraq they'll still be getting blown up. Unless it experiences a period of phenomenal economic development like every other nation that troops have been stationed in (like Korea or Japan). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members NeonVomit Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 How and when are we going to get Iraq to the point where they have a functioning and secure government ? It's been five years now. The majority of Americans won't stand for an endless and obscenely expensive occupation. Which is as it should be. It's gonna take quite a while, and I do believe that the US should stay the course. Pulling out now would be the ultimate '{censored} you' to the Iraqi people. Edit: besides, I've heard many liberals actually saying they'd prefer McCain to Hilary and would vote for him instead. Especially if Hilary wins by the delegates and not by the popular vote. It would tear the Democratic part apart, they'd either stay away or lodge protest votes. I mean, McCain, while obviously suffering from a range of mental illnesses, seems to have some basic sense of responsibility. He wants to stay in Iraq (which at this point, isn't such a horrible thing) and I just can't see him racking up zillions of dollars of debt per year to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 Except in Iraq they'll still be getting blown up. Unless it experiences a period of phenomenal economic development like every other nation that troops have been stationed in (like Korea or Japan). That's the point. when we started military bases in most of those other contries, they weren't exactly economic meccas either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bnyswonger Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 I think McCain plans on selling the First Amendment to pay for the first ten years. What do you think he'll get for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dravenzouk Posted February 11, 2008 Author Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 It's gonna take quite a while, and I do believe that the US should stay the course. Pulling out now would be the ultimate '{censored} you' to the Iraqi people. For the record, I sort of agree with you. I don't think we should "stay the course" - not by a long shot. The current "plan" is NOT working. But I also think that just simply pulling out immediately would be a big mistake, would be disastrous, and would be bad for the Iraqi people. What to do then? - honestly I'm stumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members lug Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 Nice. The current "plan" is NOT working. What do you base this on? Almost everyone on the front lines now say it is. Certainly not a lock but things are MUCH better since the surge, so much so that they have anounced a reduction in troops. If the military thinks a reduction is call for, thing are definately getting better. Almost all the stats bear this out as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members walkerci Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 At the end of the day, if the Congress doesn't fund the war then it will end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bass8987 Posted February 11, 2008 Members Share Posted February 11, 2008 BPyKpcivQYQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.