Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

who was the last presidential candidate that said they wouldnt try to balance the budget...some actually do it but they all say it...

No one's specifically committed to it since Clinton.  Neither Bush nor Kerry significantly talked about it in 2004, and none of the candidates have addressed it as a significant issue thus far in 2008.

[ice grillin you]

they didnt talk about it because they knew it wasnt possible...you have a war that cost over one billion per week...its not possible to balance a budget with that cost factored in...which makes mccains claim that much more ludicrous...hes a proponent of the bush economy and this war yet hes promising to balance the budget by using "savings" from iraq?...its laughable


i do love the notion of taking iraq savings and putting it to good use but mccain making that claim is just not believable...and thats not even counting him going into iran which he has thrown out there as a possibility...plus he has named numerous hawks to advisory positions within his inner circle

[Cerevant]

It is just another out for promises he has no intention of delivering on.  Always look at the conditionals to see the real agenda.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

The assumption that McCain will maintain the financial and personnel presence overseas is akin in naivety to the assumption that Obama will actually pull enough money and resources out to implement his platform while re-balancing the national budget.

1. fiscal conservativism (low taxes, smaller government, balanced budget) is greater than...
2. tax and spend (higher taxes, bigger government, balanced budget) is greater than...
3. borrow and spend (low taxes, big and wasteful government, big deficit) is greater than...
4. tax, borrow, and spend (high taxes, wildly inefficient and bureaucratic array of big government, irrecoverable growth of debt)

Most actual Conservatives would put them in this order.  Most Liberals would put them in the order of 2, 1, 4, 3.  McCain is representing as a "1" but could be masquerading and could stick with the George W. Bush "3."  My question is whether Obama is a "2" or a "4."

The modern-day Presidents and U.S. Congress have shown a knack for spending whatever they make, and then some, outside of the increased revenue and gridlocked legislative time in the mid-late 90's.  My concern is that with the mess Bush has created, we are absolutely up against it if the next President is not dedicated to accountability with regards to a balanced budget.  So far, Obama has talked a lot about which programs he wants to push through with the savings from Iraq and the increased revenue from higher taxes on corporations and "wealthy" people.  I just haven't heard him also account for making up the deficit as well.

[ice grillin you]

a hawk stating he would balance the budget by using savings from a war he endorses is one of the most ridiculous things ive ever heard

you bringing it up as a positive is a close second


thats all im saying

[Cerevant]

I won't deny that criticism of Obama.  I heard a great quote from an old Rick Mercer Report (the Canadian Jon Stewart): "The worst case scenario for the country is for either of these candidates to win and carry out all their campaign promises.  Don't get me wrong, free beer flowing from fountains would be great, but I don't want to pay for it." (Regarding the 2006 Canadian federal elections)

The difference is that what Obama is asking for is possible - not without its problems, but possible.  McCain's plan to eliminate the deficit in 4 years is at best fiction (he knows he can't do it), if not pure delusion (he thinks he can and tries).

[ice grillin you]

mccain has admitted he knows little about the economy...and has said hes a war expert...I have nothing to contribute

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

I won't deny that criticism of Obama.  I heard a great quote from an old Rick Mercer Report (the Canadian Jon Stewart): "The worst case scenario for the country is for either of these candidates to win and carry out all their campaign promises.  Don't get me wrong, free beer flowing from fountains would be great, but I don't want to pay for it." (Regarding the 2006 Canadian federal elections)

The difference is that what Obama is asking for is possible - not without its problems, but possible.  McCain's plan to eliminate the deficit in 4 years is at best fiction (he knows he can't do it), if not pure delusion (he thinks he can and tries).

So, you're saying it's impossible for the budget to be balanced in 4 years, but at least Obama isn't going to promise to try?

[Cerevant]

I didn't say it couldn't be done in 4 years, but there is no way it can be done while continuing a war and cutting taxes.  No farging way.

I agree that balancing the budget is an issue that Obama should address.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Fair enough.


Leave it to the Brits to actually provide some fair media coverage of our election.

Be on the lookout for Obama's upcoming shift on Iraq.  As I've said over and over again, the perception that Obama would pull out troops right away versus that of McCain leaving them there for 100 years is driven by idiocy.  In reality, the war itself will end when it ends regardless of the next President.  Obama will have to soften his stance when he's actually in the Oval Office, and McCain was only referring to leaving *some* troops during peace time, as the U.S. Military does all over the world currently.

The whole "war-mongering McCain" versus "pacifist Obama" rhetoric is tired.  Frankly, I think Obama is just as likely to put a cruise missile up Al Qaeda's collective anus as much as McCain is.

[Cerevant]

Um, the article doesn't say anything more than you have..."Watch out!  He might change position!"  it is pretty clear the BBC is reaching for "equality" here - All of McCain's position changes noted in the article are well documented.  Obama can be held accountable on the first 2 out of the 5 points, although one could argue that it is 1 if you note that the telecoms do not get immunity from criminal suits, only civil ones. 

One is borderline (DC gun ruling): from a lawyer's point of view, it is the court's job to interpret the law, and that is what the SC did.  If he felt that the point was unclear (and he is a constitutional lawyer) the opinion definitely clarified the point, even if there are still two sides.

The other two (Iraq, free trade) are pure speculation.  Yes, he might change his position, but since he hasn't yet, we have no clue what his new position will be.  As much as the press would like us to believe otherwise, these issues are not binary.

Anyway, I think the whole flip-flopping thing is overrated.  I'm not interested in what issues they change on, but why.

[Father Demon]

That's the first time someone on here has said that.  Everyone seems to jump on either candidate for "flip-flopping", even when an opinion has been changed from a stance stated five years ago.  I would HOPE that the men charged with running our country is free to change their minds based on new information, technology changes, changing priorities, etc.  It's when someone changes their mind within days or weeks that scream political posturing.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Both Obama and McCain had to do a lot of this to win their respective primaries.  You'll see more during the general, and even more once one of them is elected.

[ATV]

Obama will get us out of Iraq sooner than later. McCain may get us out of Iraq later than sooner.

[PoopyfaceMcGee]

Top Clinton adviser is going to FoxNews, declares it the fairest

Let the hate flow, Obama lovers.