digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

McCain's 'Deficit Reduction' Plan Would Cost Trillions

huffingtonpost.com — On Monday, John McCain released the outlines of his economic agenda, promising to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by saving money from achieving victory in Iraq and Afghanistan. estimates seem clear that if reducing America's deficit is the goal, a long term military presence in Iraq may not be the best idea.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • idavidtang, on 07/07/2008, -5/+33I really doubt McCain's deficit reduction plan will work when he's comitted in having troops stationed in Iraq for the next 100 years when it's obvious it will never be peaceful in Iraq when American troops continue to be stationed there. Not to mention possible continuation of tensions and the possibility of war with Iran in the future which may cause more conflict in Iraq.
    • SpartanErik, on 07/08/2008, -3/+5Honestly we won't be there for another 100 years. Things in Iraq are looking quite good (that's assuming the media coverage is accurate and correct).

      I'd be more worried about what's going on in Afghanistan instead.
      • cheezintern, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Things are 'looking quite good' because we have troops stationed in nearly every neighborhood.
      • sublimemm, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5you must be watching the "fair and balanced" media
      • warsongs7, on 07/08/2008, -0/+3Afghanistan is not a problem because the current US and Coalition troops there are massively outnumbered by the Taliban and we just need to send more soldiers. Whereas in Iraq the religious tension between the majority Shia and Sunni secular groups will always be holding back peace unless the Iraqi people themself do something to ease the tension.
      • mOdQuArK, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Do you seriously believe anything that the MSM says about anything important? They've pretty much sold their journalistic souls a long time ago; now they're too scared or too corrupt to report on anything that would cause any kind of serious change in the status quo.
      • aadyss, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Just as a matter of interest...mOdQuArK, where do you obtain your news info?
      • mOdQuArK, on 07/13/2008, -0/+1I scan as many different English-speaking news sites as I can stand (and have time for) each day (I have lot of bookmarks set up to get my tabs up quickly). It's mind boggling what a difference in emphasis there is between the U.S. web sites & the foreign ones.
    • squaredUP, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2Well of course reducing our massive debt will cost trillions since we are trillions in debt. But his plan is like trying to pay off the credit card and at the same time giving it to your 17 year old daughter and sending her shopping...
    • aadyss, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0I heard on the Nova M radio today that the increase of taxes on the rich as prescribed by Obama will balance the budget. How easy is the solution??? Really, come on now.
    • wojtyk, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0>> I really doubt McCain's deficit reduction plan will work when he's comitted in having troops stationed in Iraq for the next 100 years
      You do realize the Obama essentially holds the same view? Off his page (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/): "Under the Obama plan, a residual force will remain in Iraq and in the region to conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions against al Qaeda in Iraq and to protect American diplomatic and civilian personnel." That's "politician-ese" for the same damn view.
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/07/2008, -6/+16This is one campaign promise McPain will forget for sure!
  • practical22, on 07/07/2008, -6/+27McCain admits he knows nothing about economics, so why believe a word he has to say?. He also can't remember basics like who the enemy is in Iraq. Why would anyone assume that we are simply watching what nice people call 'senior moments'. He should be removed from embarrassing himself with economic ***** and military dreams of conquest resulting from either prolonged 'senior moments' or more likely dementia?
  • grlykool, on 07/07/2008, -5/+17Idiot.
  • tajitj, on 07/07/2008, -3/+12Very sad playing politics with troops. Tinkering with levels to make political gains. Pathetic. McCain has been using this war for politics since it started. Now linking his deficient plan to a "timetable" Where is Romney to call him out. Real conservatives need to look at Bob Barr. He has more of a chance than you think.
    http://campaign.blog.bobbarr2008.com/2008/07/07/ne ...
  • rationalbeats, on 07/08/2008, -14/+8Anyone who would vote for John McCain is a selfish, ignorant, bigoted *****.
    • Cuchanu, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1and a trollup *****
      • aadyss, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Well, I'm not selfish....not ignorant....nor bigoted. Why have you included bigoted? If I don't vote for a black man I am bigoted? Well, he is as much white as black, therefore bigoted has no play here. I bet there are some gays voting for McCain so have you disavowed your pledge of tolerance?
  • Hiltonizer, on 07/08/2008, -20/+13McCain Sucks, Obama Sucks... surprise surprise....

    now if Huff would stop spamming digg actual news might make the front page.
  • darkciti2, on 07/08/2008, -5/+16More. Republican. Fail.
    • Cuchanu, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1No *****. Iraq War: EPIC FAIL. But his plan calls for neatly winning the war and saving some money.

      What about when you fake a conflict with Iran you dick McCain? How will we save money then?
  • NoDrama, on 07/08/2008, -2/+16Senator McCain has now announced that he would balance the budget by 2013. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the unified budget deficit will be $443 billion in 2013 assuming that expiring tax cuts are extended. To balance the budget in that year John McCain would have to pay for all of his campaign proposals plus cut another $443 billion of spending. To give a sense of why this pledge is not credible, cutting spending by $443 billion would require:

    * Cutting Medicare by 81 percent OR

    * Cutting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid by 33 percent OR

    * Cutting non-defense discretionary spending – which pays for education, veterans, air traffic control and justice – by 79 percent

    And these spending cuts would be on top of the hundreds of billions of dollars of spending cuts Senator McCain needs to pay for his existing proposals including: increasing defense spending, cutting corporate taxes, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), and a small tax cut for middle class families with children (a total of $125 for middle class families with 2 children and $0 for 101 million households who do not qualify). The New York Times has estimated that Senator McCain’s budget plan “will add $200 billion to $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more” annually to the deficit.

    Without these offsets and spending cuts, the McCain budget would leave a deficit of at least $650 billion to $750 billion in 2013 alone.http://obamesque.wordpress.com/2008/07/07/mccain-d ...
    • FLUX, on 07/08/2008, -4/+2you seem to have conveniently forgotten about the bloat that congress adds to every bill as pork and unnecessary like the nea and pbs and the dept of education. Have the liberals and republicans stop blowing our money and it owuld be much easier to balance our budget

      also one thing you need to understand the govt runs on our money, OUR MONEY. The money I make is mine not the govts .
    • aadyss, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0"The money I make is mine not the govts." Well, you cannot be a liberal. That statement is heresy to the progressives. If you are a liberal then you are terribly confused. 443 billion is just one decade of Medicare. Add in Universal Health Care proposed by the secular progressives....WOW. Now that is the kind of deficit we all can believe in.
  • ruw831, on 07/08/2008, -18/+3first off, what a surprise it's from huffington post. Second.... trillions of dollars? If any of you seriously believe this I'm worried.
    • rationalbeats, on 07/08/2008, -5/+4***** you, you ignorant grunt.
  • Bob042, on 07/08/2008, -0/+17This seems like a ridiculous plan. "Well, we plan on winning in Iraq and Afghanistan, and after we win, it won't be so expensive!"

    If only it was so easy as pledging to win in Iraq by 2013.
  • Mahoney07, on 07/08/2008, -12/+10Huffington Post.
    Stopped reading there. I'm no Republican but I know they're biased.
    • SoulGrub, on 07/08/2008, -4/+4Way biased yes, but at least it's not subtitled "the fair and balanced blog".

      Nothing wrong with taking their information while considering the bias and checking their sources for accuracy
    • zombies187, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Whats an unbiased source?
  • cadmiumpaint, on 07/08/2008, -2/+19Move along. Just another typical Republican promising fiscal conservatism by spending the next 20 generations into ridiculous debt.

  • tikited, on 07/08/2008, -2/+13I don't trust McCain at all, boo.
  • tikited, on 07/08/2008, -8/+1I don't trust McCain at all, boo.
  • SpartanErik, on 07/08/2008, -15/+4Ban for HuffPo spam?
  • celkin, on 07/08/2008, -12/+1Buried for having anything to do with politics.
  • FuckXboxx, on 07/08/2008, -12/+6Obama's plan would cost the same only people wouldn't understand right away their country is still being sold right out from under them.
  • pstroll, on 07/08/2008, -2/+12Oh let's face facts already shall we. The American economy is ***** up the ass no matter who wins due to decades of reckless spending at both the government and private level on both sides of the aisle.

    So enjoy your Nintendo Wii and air conditioning while you can because we will all be standing in bread lines a decade from now.
    • blanketfury, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4I think there's a line starting now....
    • gab00n, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1***** that, I'll be hiding in the bushes with my ninja friends waiting for you when you come home with that doughy goodness.
  • mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -12/+5Its cheaper than Obama's plan
    "That timeline, however, could represent a quicker reduction than even Obama has pledged. While the Senator has stuck to the promise of removing one-to-two combat brigades a month from Iraq over the course of 16 months, his advisers say he is open to the idea (perhaps committed) of sending additional forces into Afghanistan. Should that be the case "

    "keeping in mind that Obama will leave a residual force in Iraq"
    • mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1I bet the same people that dugg the story are digging down a quote from the story. And who gives that much of a ***** to digg it down anyway? Digging down a comment does nothing, It reminds of when kids get mad at someone, then use the phone to call them and when they answer , just hang the phone up.
    • SpinningHead, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5That quote doesn't prove your point. Obama's spending is focused on infrastructure that leads to a more competitive economy and broader tax base. McCain is touting the same old supply-side economics as Hoover and Bush.

      As for McCain's "timeline", I have a personal economic timeline that involves me winning the lottery next week.
      • mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1My point is about the story. You are off in la la land
        "But if the goal is to reduce deficit by cutting down on foreign expenditures, the question should be raised: whose Iraq plan -- McCain's or Barack Obama's -- would do more?
        My point is Obama will spend more because he want to give them money and McCain wants to teach them how to manage the resources they have.
        "John McCain believes that economic progress is essential to sustaining security gains in Iraq. Markets that were once silent and deserted have come back to life in many areas, but high unemployment rates continue to fuel criminal and insurgent violence. To move young men away from the attractions of well-funded extremists, we need a vibrant, growing Iraqi economy. The Iraqi government can jump-start this process by using a portion of its budget surplus to employ Iraqis in infrastructure projects and in restoring basic services.

        The international community should bolster proven microfinance programs to spur local-level entrepreneurship throughout the country. Iraq's Arab neighbors, in particular, should promote regional stability by directly investing the fruits of their oil exports in Iraq. As these efforts begin to take hold in Iraq, the private sector, as always, will create the jobs and propel the growth that will end reliance on outside aid. Iraq’s government needs support to better deliver basic services—clean water, garbage collection, abundant electricity, and, above all, a basic level of security—that create a climate where the Iraqi economy creation can flourish."
        http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/FDEB03A ...
        “Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”—Author unknown
      • mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -1/+2All your comments says is,.
        Obama is good
        McCain is bad
        That is pretty much all of diggs political news in six words, You will get over 30 up diggs for that.
      • SpinningHead, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1You described the same plan weve been hearing for Bush's term in office. It sounds nice and hasnt worked because of realities on the ground.

        I also stated why Obama's policies are better. Youre expecting the same policies for another 4 years to yield different results.
    • mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1It takes longer than 5 years to build a new country, Its not like the Sims game.
  • YodaJones, on 07/08/2008, -4/+13John McCain: Dumber than Dumbya.
    • mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -5/+2You should read the story your comment make you sound "Dumber than Dumbya."
      • obamayomama, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0yeah but look at how the Libtards give him props for being a moron.
    • mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Name calling is just an easy out.
  • macweirdo42, on 07/08/2008, -1/+18Isn't McCain also promising massive tax cuts? Somehow, massive tax cuts combined with massive government spending is supposed to result in a balanced budget? Holy hell, it's Voodoo economics all over again!
    • johndavidjack, on 07/08/2008, -3/+1As opposed to massive government spending and tax increases with Obama.

      How am I supposed to pump money into the American economy if I can't afford anything because the government takes all of it?
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4Have you actually looked at Obama's proposed tax "increase"? I'm near the top end, and it means that I'm going to be paying about $1-2k more per year (which, frankly, I'm glad to do if it'll help get the government back under control). For everyone below me, which is nearly all of the middle class, it's a tax BREAK.

        So how, again, is the government going to be taking all of your money under Obama?

      • macweirdo42, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4I don't see how Obama's policy is even relevant to my point.
      • johndavidjack, on 07/08/2008, -2/+1Okay, since you mentioned Obama's issues page, read a lot of them. Explain to me how half of the increases in social programs and funding are going to be paid for?

        I'm not rich by any means, but tell me how come rich people should be taxed because they make more money?
    • aadyss, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0Obama said he would reduced income taxes of 95% of working people. I guess the remaining 5% are capable of paying billions of dollars into the coffers. As a retired person, his increase of the capitol gains taxes lowers my income so thank you Obama. The retired person must be included in the rich category. Darn, I'm rich and didn't know it. It's time to party!
  • hoopy22, on 07/08/2008, -11/+3I'm shocked!!!!! Huffingtonpost.com has an anti-Republican item???? What's next? Wet water? Blue sky? Pain hurts?
  • pintomp3, on 07/08/2008, -0/+13he's claiming he will be able to balance the budget with the savings from the victories in iraq and afghanistan. he's compounding the promises of one delusion with the fantasies of another.
  • sitryd, on 07/08/2008, -0/+8It's so simple! *win* the war in iraq and the budget is balanced! Why didn't Bush think of winning the war.

    Also, how do you apply the "savings" from something 100% financed by deficit spending? You can't apply savings from something thats not even in the budget to pay down the deficit.

    /Fail.
  • mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -6/+1This is funny how people bitch at the cost of war, Then bitch at the cost to bring them home.
  • NoisyFoot, on 07/08/2008, -0/+6"promising to balance the federal budget by the end of his first term by saving money from achieving victory in Iraq and Afghanistan". This reads like an article from the Onion.
  • Bannedx5, on 07/08/2008, -8/+0Auto buried. Huffpost propaganda.
  • dildoolielly, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7I know two things about McCain, he hasn't a clue about how the economy works and he is an infant on foreign policy. I love that the Internet, and specifically digg for exposing this melting, reptilian lunatic for who he really is. he's on par with your favorite senile grandpa who says wacky, ignorant ***** that you brush aside because deep in your heart you know that the sane people are gonna win the country back this November.

    let's make it happen people.
  • Hawk2007, on 07/08/2008, -7/+1Huffington Post (drudge report clone that's failing) has something bad to say about McCain.

    BFD!!
  • brainscab, on 07/08/2008, -1/+7He's ok with us being in Iraq for 100 years, (And he hopes it would be alright with you, too.) so we will never actually see this 'pay for the debt by stopping the war spending' plan in action.

    The other thing I know is that we were way in debt before the war started, so if we stop spending money there, all of the sudden it will take care of the 100 years of debt that we racked up. But it does'nt really matter, because we are going to be there for 100 years.
  • sizzzzlerz, on 07/08/2008, -0/+7Hey, no criticizing St. John. He was a POW in Vietnam after being shot down and can't be slammed for stupidity. Otherwise, you must hate our troops.
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0See my comment below. McCain is not going to be forgiven for
      supporting the Vietnam stupidity and wanting to create a new kind of
      Korea problem in the ME. Many of us prefer to think with the big head and
      use the little head for fun. This has nothing to do with hating troops.
      Most of them have been fooled by the hawks or bribed into being some kind
      of Hessian type patriots with $40,000 sign on bonuses. If you will not
      put the USA interests first and foremost move to Baghdad.
      We won't miss you.
  • Jason2008, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5John McCain is another Bush
    • aadyss, on 07/09/2008, -0/+0If that be true then Obama is another Jimmie Carter.
  • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/08/2008, -0/+2What type of liberal word mincing is “saving money from achieving
    victory in Iraq and Afghanistan”. This must be early onset Alzheimers.
    That is a terrible fate but he may deserve it. After all, did he not
    (either directly or at least supported it) roast thousands of SE Asian
    peasants and send three USA generations the bills?
  • stealthc, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1So occupying foreign countries is a waste of money, but wild expansions in welfare programs is frugal?
    • BotchaMcCoola, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Absolutely not. We are in the grips of two kinds of spendaholics, one called Democrats, the other Republicans. The media and Wal-Mart shoppers are pretty happy either way. Support a Libertarian landslide. I don’t think we will regret doing the right thing for our kids and grandkids. Here is a nice Libertarian-oriented news site: http://www.rationalreview.com/news that has e-mail subscription service.
      • obamayomama, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Then get a Libertarian candidate instead of a Republican- Barr.
  • bmac12, on 07/08/2008, -1/+1I love this gem in a subsequent jump. McCain spokesperson Brian Rogers "clarified" the approach when asked:

    "It's pretty straightforward, as we win, costs will go down with a smaller footprint over time, and those savings will go to deficit reduction.... Achieving success in Iraq would obviously lead to reduced expenditures on the effort."

    It's worded in such a crafty manner it's obnoxious: "savings will go to deficit reduction." Being in Iraq CAUSES the deficit. And he accurately did not say "debt reduction," he said "deficit reduction." That's like saying, "Let's see. I make $50K a year. But I spend $65K a year, putting the excess on my credit card. I think I'll stop doing that. Then then SAVINGS will go to 'getting-into-deeper-debt' reduction! Voila!"

    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/20 ...
    • wojtyk, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0>> Being in Iraq CAUSES the deficit
      Iraq expenditure (and military overall) is a relatively small-to-average chunk of government expenditure year-to-year.
      Why don't you count up the annual number of total dollars we spend on Iraq and then count up to total dollars we spend on Social Security and then still tell me with a straight face that IRAQ is the sole/primary cause of the deficit.
      I'll even start you off: Social security costs 600 BILLION per year. And that's just one program. Tack on Medicare/Medicaid and you're talking ANOTHER 600 billion.
  • DBCooper2, on 07/08/2008, -0/+0Mccain the American Nazi
  • geekee, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080709/ap_on_el_pr/ca ...
    Analysis: Obama won't try for McCain's budget goal
  • marabout40, on 07/09/2008, -0/+1300 Economists were duped into signing a short statement of "support" which was then attached to the15 page plan. In interviews with more than a dozen of the signatories, Politico found that, far from embracing McCain’s economic plan, many were unfamiliar with — or downright opposed to — key details.
  • TastyWheat, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Misleading title, misleading article. McCain likely has the more expensive foreign policy, but including Obama's domestic and welfare policies he'll give us a bigger budget and likely a bigger deficit.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.