What is Digg?42 Comments
- thejimmyo, on 04/20/2008, -5/+30McCain's top economic adviser admits that his plan "will make deficits expand."
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/2 ...
He even says things like this: "I would like the next president not to talk about deficit reduction."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14wa ...
Just to remind everyone, we're already more than $9 trillion in debt, and the fastest growing expense is interest on that massive debt. We can't just keep borrowing money from China forever. McCain's plan will ultimately end up with the rest of us paying MORE in taxes in the future when we finally have to account for all this debt. - neognostic, on 04/21/2008, -0/+15I'm sorry that I have to keep posting this, but I get tired of the Tax & Spend Republicans casting stones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S. ...
- corneliusJones, on 04/21/2008, -2/+14When did Conservatives forget that when you reduce taxes, you must also reduce government spending?
- dinobot, on 04/21/2008, -2/+14Well, McCain did confess he wasn't the best guy around to ask things regarding economy - this just shows how scary his ideas are.
- TexMexMatt, on 04/21/2008, -1/+10Taxing the rich is what Liberals think. Get it straight for once will you. The middle class will get tax reductions if Obama wins so stop your lies. You are a filthy dirty rotten liar. Its always like this with you republicans. When it comes to the issues you will always lose so you start lying and cussing and cheating instead. The only way McCain will win is if he plays dirty. That is so gonna bite you in the ass one day...
- DD2CC2U, on 04/21/2008, -5/+12McCain is just another " Credit Card Republican".
What me worry? - lokee73, on 04/21/2008, -0/+6I agree with your sentimate, but I dissagree with your framing.
Republican's aren't tax and spend; Democrats are tax and spend. Republican's are BORROW and spend; which is much more evil by comparison. - strafefire, on 04/21/2008, -3/+9Keep taxes where they are, and LOWER GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
What is so ***** hard about that?
You'd think someone would have said some ***** when they approved that $1TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT BUDGET a few months ago.
The words Deficit and Budget should NEVER even be in the same sentence!!!
I can just imagine that conversation now:
Senator #1: Oh *****, san! We're about to over spend $1 Trillion dollars this year!
Senator #2: Yeah, that is a huge amount! Maybe we should, you know, start cutting programs and ***** to get this number down some...
Senator #1: Yeah. As a matter of fact, lets make it so that we cannot spend ANY MONEY that we don't have!
Senator #2: MAN! That is an awesome idea!
A few seconds go bye, and then...
Senators #1 and #2: BWWWAHHHHAHAHAHAH!
Senator #2: MAN, that ***** was mad funny, yo!
Senator #1: Hells yeah. Balance the budget. Pffft! That would require us to do something, like --
Senator #2: Our job. I know, that's some *****, ain't it?!!
Senator #1: Yeah, like serious...
Senator #2: For real, for real... - gak001, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5Double-think, anyone?
- thomsamuels, on 04/21/2008, -0/+5More of the same, more of the same...
- smackjack, on 04/21/2008, -2/+7probably around the same time they realized that policy wouldn't get them votes
- nblsavage, on 04/21/2008, -0/+4what middle class?
- inactive, on 04/22/2008, -0/+2The recession was caused by the fall in housing because so many bad mortgages had been written BECAUSE the monetary supply had grown too fast for too long. That fast growth flooded lenders with cash at very low interest, therefore they were tempted to run the machine. OK?
No inflation of the money supply, no housing bubble. No bubble, no crash.
Monetary policy drives everything pal. - Nortaak, on 04/21/2008, -4/+6Why not just have Bush III - another 8 years of the same!
I find it amazing that people will vote for someone this clueless and misinformed in the name of so called "national security" that only he can provide.
Just plain scary!!! - inactive, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2tax the poor, let the rich go by. perfect sense. what rtard would vote for this old sac of *****. obama is our only choice, and if he can get past the feminists, we should be golden.
- inactive, on 04/21/2008, -0/+2according to many economists, some government overspending is good for the economy. but it has gone too far under george w. bush.
- inactive, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2We have a recession brought on by inflation of the monetary supply, so MacCain says "just keeping printing until we get this sucker running right". If it keeps the economy going (which is doubtful, the recession is going to happen anyway), but if it does keep the economy going it will do so by stealing a trillion or two more from our children and granchildren.
Thanks Grampa - DaDrake, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1So you like Obama's idea of making a "level playing field" and taxing capital gains at 27%? You do realize your talking about 135 million americans. When will you understand, the ultra-rich is the middle-class according to Obama.
- PATSCRU, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1I'm not so much for lowering government spending as I am for smarter government spending, but i realize that the latter would eventually lead to the former....In the age of sound bite politics, lowering taxes is a more politically rewarding, albeit insane move as opposed to saying you will curb gov't spending.
- OBDriftwood, on 04/22/2008, -0/+1Tax cuts, by definition, go to those who pay taxes. Since the bottom 50% of wage earners have no federal tax burden, the tax cuts have to go to the top 50%. You can call this tax cuts for the rich if you want to demagogue but it is basic math and logic at work. You can't get a refund for a canceled concert if you didn't buy a ticket.
- DaDrake, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1It is incorrect to assume lowering taxes decreases revenue. When Bill Cliton lower the capital gains tax to 18 percent (from about 27%), the revenue of the government trippled (despite a tax decrease). Likewise, when Bush lower taxes, revenue also increased. It amazes me that so many diggers think lower taxes are such a horrible thing.
What we need is someone to LOWER SPENDING .... so far, Obama has promised to increase government social programs so it makes me wonder.... who has the worst economic plan (I think they are both *****). - McDeath, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2Just shows how ignorant people base their presidential choice on irrelevant subjects, instead of basing them on their qualities and (real) experience.
- visceroth, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1yes but Obama is also promised to get the troops out of Iraq. Where is most of our governmental spending going? To Iraq. We get out of this war and the government spending will lower itself. Obama is promising to take the money we are using in iraq to increase social programs. On top of that he also promised to lower the taxes to the middle class where it is needed.
The rich is a small ratio of this country and to give them a tax break will not stimulate the economy. You have to cut the people who just bought homes a tax break so they can pay for their house AND spend money in the stores. That's how this economy can get back on it's feet. - visceroth, on 04/21/2008, -1/+2ok first of all cutting taxes is great but you aren't putting tax cuts on demographics. You are giving tax cuts TO THE RICH!!! You need to give tax cuts to the people who spend the money to make the rich, rich.
DaDrake, either you are trying to use reverse psychology or you are an idiot. This year has set record breaking number for the demographic of 18-25 year olds to go out and support Obama. And these "***** for brains" kids that you are talking about, are your future. Many of them will decide what happens when you are wearing depends. Show some respect. No wonder this generation is so ***** up with dickholes like you running around and reproducing. - inactive, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1It's laughable that one might expect McCain, Hillary, or Obama, to cut taxes, or balance the budget. They should argue over who will raise taxes, and expand the budget, least.
- inactive, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Can you prove that lowering tax rates caused a revenue rise or are you just claiming that they are related based on proximity?
- inactive, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1From your link: "In January 2004, for example, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office projected that 2004 revenue would be $1.817 trillion. Actual revenue came in $63 billion higher – half a percent of GDP. "
WOW THAT PROVES.... nothing. It is a fact that revenue increased in 2004. This partisan speech shows no causality. It only claims what you claim. We all know that the right wing CLAIMS tax cuts increase revenues. We're still waiting on some proof. This scrap of BushCo propaganda doesn't prove anything. - Zarokima, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1It already bit them in the ass, but not with McCain.
- DaDrake, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js3039.htm
http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js3039.htm
I picked this site since it summarizes it really well. He was also the secretary of the treasury and fairly popular with both parties. - visceroth, on 04/22/2008, -1/+1so the middle class doesn't have jobs? We as individuals don't pay federal and state taxes?
- DaDrake, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1So true, but people digg you down. The same thing happen when Cliton lowered the capital gains tax ...... but today's diggers despise Cliton just as much as Bush. Thankfully, the digg demographic (18-25 yrs old) are the less likely to vote.... because they have ***** for brains.
- zephyr42, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1the same time republicans decided war was a good idea for no apparent reason.
- suntzusputnik, on 04/21/2008, -0/+0says the guy that knows nothing of economics
- DaDrake, on 04/21/2008, -1/+1Not true since the tax reduction by Cliton and Bush both led to increase revenue. But... I support both a lowering of taxes and spending.
- inactive, on 04/21/2008, -3/+3The fossil McCain is not fit to serve our country.
- DaDrake, on 04/21/2008, -1/+0Actually the recession was caused by a fall in the housing market... which was caused by irresponsible loaners and irrational Americans taking on too much debt. But *****... you must know better.
- inactive, on 04/21/2008, -6/+5Republicans, tax cuts for the rich and recession. A matched set.
- CaptainAmerica1, on 04/21/2008, -2/+1In an effort to replace Democrats as the "We Really Do Care About You" (e.g., the new drug program for seniors) party, the Republicans *have* spent us into oblivion, with no results from voters who appreciate their efforts. So, when Democrats raise spending for social programs, they are loved. When Republicans do it, they are hated. Go figure.
Democrats, on the other hand, have bitched, moaned, whined and hissy-fitted all over the place when even the mere mention of a reduction in the increase of spending is made, much less actual spending cuts.
Bill Clinton admitted that he raised taxes "too much" (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990 ...
Will we get the same with Barack or Hillary? - OBDriftwood, on 04/21/2008, -5/+2The title is misleading since in the article Johnny McC clearly states that stimulating the economy will put the feds on a path to a balanced budget. But McCain and his advisers have history on their side. When Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush lowered taxes, the economy took off and overall tax revenues increased. No farmer ever got rich on the money saved not feeding his horse.
- mwrl, on 04/21/2008, -15/+5The last thing Americans need is a tax increase which will come if we elect a Democrat. The sad part is that Liberals think taxing the middle class is the best thing since sliced bread.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is