What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history – the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
82 Comments
- 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.
- 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?
- cadmiumpaint, on 07/08/2008, -2/+19Move along. Just another typical Republican promising fiscal conservatism by spending the next 20 generations into ridiculous debt.
- 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. - inactive, 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!
- 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 ... - 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.
- grlykool, on 07/07/2008, -5/+17Idiot.
- darkciti2, on 07/08/2008, -5/+16More. Republican. Fail.
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -2/+13I don't trust McCain at all, boo.
- inactive, on 07/07/2008, -6/+16This is one campaign promise McPain will forget for sure!
- 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. - YodaJones, on 07/08/2008, -4/+13John McCain: Dumber than Dumbya.
- 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 ... - 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. - 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.
- inactive, 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. - inactive, 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. - 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.
- blanketfury, on 07/08/2008, -3/+8It's kinda scary to think that someday he might have access to our country's nuclear launch codes....
He doesn't even know how to use a computer -.-
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/06/24/aware-of- ... - 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. - Jason2008, on 07/08/2008, -0/+5John McCain is another Bush
- zombies187, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4Whats an unbiased source?
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -0/+4I don't see how Obama's policy is even relevant to my point.
- 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.
- sublimemm, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5you must be watching the "fair and balanced" media
- cheezintern, on 07/08/2008, -1/+5Things are 'looking quite good' because we have troops stationed in nearly every neighborhood.
- 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.
- 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? - blanketfury, on 07/08/2008, -1/+4I think there's a line starting now....
- 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...
- 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. - 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? - 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 - mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1It takes longer than 5 years to build a new country, Its not like the Sims game.
- zombies187, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1...a political act in itself.
- 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. - mal1964, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Name calling is just an easy out.
- 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. - Cuchanu, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1and a trollup *****
- 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? - 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. - 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. -
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is