quote:

 Amendment 4246 US Senate:

Sen. Obama has offered 188 campaign proposals that would add up to at least $300 billion in new annual spending. That has a 5-year cost of more than $1.4 TRILLION.

Of the 188 new spending proposals, the $300 billion price tag only covers 111 proposals. There are another 77 proposals with unknown cost estimates that will add billions to this number.

This new spending, if enacted, would represent an almost 10% increase over the President’s FY 2009 budget

To put this in perspective, this $300 billion spending proposals would cost more than 42 states’ budgets combined (general fund expenditures). It is more than the United States spent last year on imported oil ($294 billion net). It is more than 60% larger than any one-year federal spending increase, ever.

Who will pay for the proposed $300 billion increase in spending? Middle-class American taxpayers and small businesses (which are the engine of growth for our economy), that’s who. Raising taxes on just the "rich" simply won’t cover it.

Under Pay-Go budget rules, new spending or tax cuts are paid for by spending cuts or tax hikes. The CBO budget baseline already incorporates the extra revenue due to higher tax rates, so the end of the Bush tax cuts won’t pay for the proposed spending and still satisfy Pay-Go.

Senator Obama has promised to pay for his record new spending increases with a tax increase on families making $250,000 and over. However, this increase would only yield $225 billion over 5 years, a far cry short of the $1.4 trillion required under his new spending plan.

• What is a "green" job? 
  
• What does job creation have to do with energy?
  
• How is "energy efficiency" an "energy source"? 
  
• What are "windfall profits"?
• What is "excessive energy speculation"?
• How will tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve lower prices?
• How does $4Billion in tax credits to the auto industry reconcile with the taxation goal of "closing special-interest loopholes"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Hmmm... I thought those supporting Obama would jump all over this chance to discuss policy and issues.

quote:

Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


McCain makes no mention of the Budget Deficit.

quote:

  

The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction. A one-year pause in the growth of discretionary spending will be imposed to allow for a comprehensive review of all spending programs. After the completion of a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, we will propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs.

A McCain Administration will provide the leadership to achieve bipartisan spending restraint equivalent to that in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement between a GOP Congress and a Democratic President. In 1997, President Clinton and the GOP Congress agreed to balance the budget by restraining the growth in spending and cutting taxes over a ten-year period.

With the same bipartisan effort today, with the federal budget that is now 70 percent larger, we could keep taxes low and still balance the budget by holding overall spending growth to 2.4 percent. Unlike Congress and the Executive branch in recent years, a McCain Administration will enforce the spending restraint to balance the budget and keep it balanced.

A McCain Administration would perform a comprehensive review of all programs, projects and activities of the federal government, and then propose a plan to modernize, streamline, consolidate, reprioritize and, where needed, terminate individual programs. McCain could use the bi-partisan commission structure used for the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). Such a commission could be required to report to the President who would then submit the recommendations to the Congress for a straight up or down vote.

A McCain Administration will review all special spending provisions to end subsidies to high-income individuals and corporations.

Stop Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending, And Waste: John McCain will veto every pork-laden spending bill and make their authors famous. As President, he will seek the line-item veto to reduce waste and eliminate earmarks that have led to corruption. Earmarks restrict America's ability to address genuine national priorities and interfere with fair, competitive markets.


Take back earmark funds. The McCain Administration will reclaim billions of add-on spending from earmarks and add-ons in FY 2007 and 2008.

[T]he McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's plan. The ad opens with the Obama-as-celebrity theme -- "Celebrities don't have to worry about family budgets, but we sure do," says the female announcer. "We're paying more for food and gas, making it harder to save for college, retirement." Then she sticks it to him: "Obama's solution? Higher taxes, called 'a recipe for economic disaster.' He's ready to raise your taxes but not ready to lead."
The facts? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that the Obama plan would give households in the bottom fifth of the income distribution an average tax cut of 5.5 percent of income ($567) in 2009, while those in the middle fifth would get an average cut of 2.6 percent of income ($1,118). "Your taxes" would go up, yes -- but not if you're someone who is sweating higher gas prices. By contrast, Mr. McCain's tax plan would give those in the bottom fifth of income an average tax cut of $21 in 2009. The middle fifth would get $325 -- less than a third of the Obama cut. The wealthiest taxpayers make out terrifically.

quote:

"Your taxes" would go up, yes -- but not if you're someone who is sweating higher gas prices.

quote:

He doesn't?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Hmmm... I thought those supporting Obama would jump all over this chance to discuss policy and issues.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

He doesn't?

Well, he didn't under "taxes." If you are going to reduce the deficit, you have to hike taxes and control spending.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thadius

Hmmm... I thought those supporting Obama would jump all over this chance to discuss policy and issues.

I'm sorry, but I am going to have to call bs on that one.