Thinking Fool

Fool,

Let's be honest with ourselves...neither of the campaigns are being straight about their economic plans. Both are singing the traditional hymns of their parties, but between legislative tools and economic realities, I would be stunned to see half the programs implemented.

McCain's concept of a balanced budget is both laughable (especially with a continued war) and irresponsible (can't shoot for a non-deficit in poor economic times).

Obama's tax plan is too undefined and I'd be stunned to see it fully implemented.

But the Dems winning the triumvirate scares the crap out of me, and I'm a Dem.

Funny. I'm thinking of going Obama for almost the opposite reason: generally speaking I'm a fan of big government (I'd of course like to see it run more efficiently). I really hate McCain's attempts to tie Obama to Ayers. He should be hammering in the "a leader doesn't just lay blame like Obama does" message and trying to make the relevant question Iraq, not chasing Obama on the economy. There are winning strategies, McCain just isn't using them.

(m), taxes should not be raised, pure and simple. I don't know why a family making 250,000 is considered to be super wealthy in America. Yeah, that's a lot better than most folks, but if you have three of four kids in private school and/or college, not like you're just rolling in dough at the end of the day.

Philosofer, big things are by definition inefficient. Too little accountability. The bigger it gets, the more inefficient it gets. That's just the way it is.

Yes, McCain treated his first wife pretty damn badly.

And my sister, who works on Capitol Hill, told me that he once called his current wife the c-word in front of a whole bunch of staffers.

Doesn't mean he won't make a good president. I was undecided until he picked that frightening woman as his running mate. That cinched it for me - I'm definitely voting for Obama!

Fool -

Thd "big = inefficient" idea is complete fiction. As proof I offer you our own federal government, which runs a heck of a lot more efficiently than the governments of many countries. Or compare various federal agencies, each of which has it's own level of efficiency. You're right that the key is accountability, but big does not equate to too little efficiency. And I will say that accountability is usually something that needs to be implimented at a more local level, but that doesn't preclude a large federal government; the burden of accountability just rests with a more active electorate who partcipate on several levels of government, with more constant participation (calling representatives, etc.).

Philosofer, I have considered your argument. It has been denied. Big = Inefficient. Case closed. ;-) Actually, I agree with you in theory that big does not necessarily equal inefficient, but the bigger it gets, the more inefficient it seems to get. I'm for nimble and small. This whole nonsense about taking one man's money to give it to another is absurd. We're so messed up financially, why not just try a flat tax to see how it would go. I mean, seriously. WHAT THE HELL!

You mean, like a flat tax without all the deductions and stuff? I wouldn't be opposed to that, provided there were a reasonable minimum and credits for children.

Maybe I'm confused, but I don't get this Robin Hood, wealth redistribution crap being thrown out there. Obama is not taking money from some people and giving that same money to other people. He is proposing a tax break to certain people so that they retain more of their own earned money. His plan is for workers, he's not giving tax rebate checks to poor people who otherwise don't file and pay taxes. "Spreading the wealth" only means allowing more of the population to increase their personal wealth rather than the top 5%.

Sure, tax breaks for everyone would be great, but the government needs money, and we can't depend on increased revenues from trickle down theories; nor can spending cuts provide the dough the govt. needs. A 3% tax rate increase for those making over $250K isn't a bankruptcy sentence. You don't need to be "rolling in dough" to meet that burden.

And before you ask, yes, I would still vote for Obama if I made over $250K, even if it meant that I had to move my kids into public school. ;-)

I think phil covered most of the points I would have made save for one: why the hell do you believe that government would grow larger under a democrat than under a republican?

Every Republican since Reagan has preached smaller government and done EXACTLY the opposite. Seriously, do you know the name of the President that has had the least growth in government in the past 30 years? That would be Bill Clinton.

I'm not saying Obama won't increase the size of government, but at least he will be honest about it.

The Democrats are historically the party that expands government in a huge way. See, e.g., The New Deal and The Great Society. I agree that the Republicans have not held true to their word to keep government from expanding. Clinton did a great job, but I wonder how good a job he would have done with a Democratic congress. Bush is an awful president and anything but a true conservative. I just think McCain would implement fewer massive social programs. Maybe not, but I'm not betting on Obama and a Democratic Congress to control spending.