IAP Political Forum

Today McCain's campaign announced that he would balance the budget by the end of his first term in 2013.

He didn't say how.

This constitutes a remarkable flip-flop-flip:
First of all, he has claimed that he will make Bush's tax cuts permanent (flip-floping from his earlier opposition to the tax cuts because, he said, they were too targeted toward the rich).
***Annual cost, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, by 2013: $443 billion***

And he said he'd repeal the AMT.
***Cost, about $100 billion a year***

And he said that he was for a whole pack of tax breaks for all his corporate America friends.
***Cost, about another $100 billion a year.***

He's content to stay in Iraq indefinately, while Afghanistan is spiraling downhill. Cost. Who knows? Tens, probably hundreds of billions a year.

As for program cuts, he's been pretty vague about that. Something about, let's see, what was it? Oh yes, he was for "cutting waste."

Now suddenly he's going to balance the budget in four years. Most politicans would become a laughing stock if, from the ideological corner they had painted themselves into, they then claimed such a thing. But McCain is such a media darling that most reports I see are, at most, vaguely critical of his announcement, but nothing like the thundering derision it deserves. Meanwhile, if people believe McCain, they'll believe anything. And if they don't believe McCain, they might suspect that "Mr. Straight talk" will say anything, anything, to win.

Meanwhile, McCain is caught on the horns of a dilema, with one foot tepidly in each of the two camps of conservative economics: the deficit hawks (who have been in full retreat since the Reagan years) and the supply-siders.

I did see this today.  And for all the neo-con bleating about Obama's flip flops, this one is stunning for McSame.  I wonder how many will simply avoid this thread so they don't get their noses rubbed in their hypocracy?

JPN, I commented on this earlier today on another thread as I'm an old timer who remembers well the "budget balancing act" back in the Reagan Administration and added this post from the Times years ago about Reagan. Good old Gramm, Rudman, Hollings, what ever happened to it?


http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE7DB1F3EF935A15751C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Reagan never seemed to have a real problem with "busting the budget" most especially for the purpose of the DOD with the restoration of all of those old battleships, now
proven non-working weaponry, and there was "star wars" which may or may not all these decades later be marginally successful.

Maybe McCain really wants to balance the budget with cuts in Social Security and Medicare while avoiding actually touching that "third rail" of politics and upsetting the elderly who depend on them? Where did he say those cuts were going to come from? 

Time to depart, but from the NY Times some reality instead of pipe dreams. Would you buy a used car from McCain?

July 8, 2008
Skepticism on McCain Plan To Balance Budget by 2013

By ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The package of spending and tax cuts proposed by Senator John McCain is unlikely to achieve his goal of balancing the federal budget by 2013, economists and fiscal experts said Monday.

“It would be very difficult to achieve in the best of circumstances, and even more difficult under the policies that Senator McCain has proposed,” said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group.

Mr. McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, is proposing billions of dollars in tax cuts. But advisers to Mr. McCain said those costs would be more than offset by savings from slower growth in spending.

In his proposal, Mr. McCain said he would hold overall spending growth to 2.4 percent a year. That is a tall order because federal spending has been growing an average of more than 6 percent a year in the last five years.

Mr. McCain said he would also slow the growth of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and fiscal experts agree that he would need to do that to achieve his goal. But Mr. McCain did not give details of how he would alter those benefit programs, which have powerful constituencies, including older Americans, a huge health care industry and state and local government officials.

A longtime foe of pet projects known as earmarks, Mr. McCain said he would stop such spending. The Bush White House says earmarks this year total $17 billion, a comparatively small share of a $2.9 trillion budget.

Mr. McCain proposed a one-year freeze in most domestic spending subject to annual appropriations, “to allow for a comprehensive review.” This proposal would affect education, scientific research, law enforcement and scores of other programs.

Mr. Bush’s battles with Congress suggest it would be extremely difficult for Mr. McCain to win approval for such a freeze.

Mr. McCain said he was counting on “rapid economic growth” to help reduce the deficit. While a growing economy generates additional revenue, several of Mr. McCain’s tax proposals would be costly, experts said.

He would “phase out and eliminate” a provision of the tax code known as the alternative minimum tax, which has ensnared a growing number of middle-class Americans in recent years.

By his own account, repealing this tax “will save middle-class families nearly $60 billion in a single year.” That is $60 billion that would presumably not be available to the Treasury.

Mr. McCain also wants to extend many of the Bush tax cuts, scheduled to expire by Jan. 1, 2011. That could reduce tax collections below the levels assumed under current law, and it could widen the deficit, many economists said.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that extending the Bush tax cuts would cost more than $700 billion in the next five years.

Since January, the economy has been weaker than expected, making the goal of a balanced budget more difficult to achieve. The budget deficit in the current fiscal year is running much higher than in the previous year.

Other McCain proposals, like doubling the personal tax exemption for dependents and cutting the corporate income tax rate, would also reduce revenues, economists said.

C. Eugene Steuerle of the Urban Institute, who worked in the Reagan administration, said Mr. McCain “may well be committed to balancing the budget in five years, but does not tell you how he would reach that goal.”

J. Bradford DeLong, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley, who worked at the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, said, “Senator McCain and his advisers want to claim they will balance the budget by 2013, but they have given us no clue and no plan to meet all the commitments he has made and still get there.”

On the other hand, history shows the deficit sometimes shrinks faster than experts expect.

That happened in 1998 in the Clinton administration, when the government ran a surplus for the first time in nearly three decades. And Mr. Bush cut the deficit in half faster than he or many fiscal experts had predicted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/us/politics/08budget.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1215493671-lv1vUX/11251fJtGtplSbQ&pagewanted=print

I'd rather McCain try and fail than to elect someone who has no intention of even trying to curb government spending but rather is looking to install tens...maybe hundreds of billions of dollars of new government and will absolutely soak ALL of us to pay for it.

That is cute that you assume he is even going to try.  I guess it comes down to which McCain you want to believe in.  You have quite a few choices from what I have seen of his "positions"

Just saying he'll try gives me a modicum of hope as opposed to Obama who says flat out that he'll expand government and raise taxes.

I've never seen Obama say anything at all like this.  Can you prove it???  Got any links?

In fact, just  based on the fact that Obama wants out of Iraq, and McCain wants to stay in Iraq means that more money is likely to be spent in a McCain administration. 

With all due respect, yours is a common Republican war cry which is misguided.  The Reagan / Bushes era generated huge increases in government spending, and soaring debt.  The Clinton administration eventually operated at a surplus.  High government spending and increasing government debt is terrible for the economy, and I fear that's in fact what we'll see with McCain.

Kevin Drum: "Sure, but what's a Republican to do these days? They're supposed to be fiscal conservatives, which means they have to pretend to love balanced budgets. So McCain does. Raising taxes is, however, verboten by party fiat, which leaves an aspiring GOP president only two choices: (a) reducing spending and (b) magic. Unfortunately for our hero, proposing actual, concrete budget cuts of any substance is political suicide and he knows it. This leaves magic as the only alternative."

Neue is encouraged that McCain has chosen magic.

From his site...briefly...

Provide Additional Tax Rebates to American Workers
Establish a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund
Provide $10 billion in Relief for State and Local Governments Hardest-Hit by the Housing Crisis to Prevent Cuts in Vital Services
Extend and Expand Unemployment Insurance
Invest in our Next Generation Innovators and Job Creators
Double Funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Invest In A Clean Energy Economy And Create 5 Million New Green Jobs: Obama will invest $150 billion over 10 years...
Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies
Create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank
Invest in the Sciences
Make the Research and Development Tax Credit Permanent
Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies
Create a National Network of Public-Private Business Incubators
Raise the Minimum Wage
Create a New FHA Housing Security Program
Create a Universal Mortgage Credit
Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures
Expand the Family and Medical Leave Act
Encourage States to Adopt Paid Leave
Expand High-Quality Afterschool Opportunities

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/

My hands are tired of copying and pasting but you get the idea.

What's the point of saying you can even balance the budget?

Any plan that isn't long-term is devoid of economic understanding... and anything that is long term is a joke because not only can we not project what will happen tomorrow (God forbid the next 10 or 20 years), but chances are good that the opposition party is just gonna come in and change everything anyway...

... so why bother pretending like it's even possible?

I don't mean this as criticism of any party or candidate. I mean this as criticism of our current economic position - which is deplorable.

So is raising taxes and Obama knows it. That's why he says only people making over $250,000 will see a tax increase...ie: the 'rich.' Soaking the 'rich' sounds good and makes people 'feel' good but the reality is, we'll ALL get hit with higher taxes and Obama knows it.

Show me again where this says he expands government and raises taxes ... I appreciate all of the cut and paste, but it's just not there.

In fact, this is eerily similar to McCain's economic plan, which contains many of the same line items.  He has many items in his plan, such as the Lexington Project, his HOME plan, his $5000 contribution to every American family's health care plan, and so forth.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Images/Issues/JobsforAmerica/briefing.pdf

It seems irrefutable that the candidate that is intent on continuing the Iraq war indefinitely, at a cost of over $340M a day, has the smallest chance of balancing the budget. 

You opinion is noted but not very important. McCain promises more of the same and somehow you think it will work this time.

Every one of those items listed are new and by definition is an expansion of government.


True


I think raising taxes in a fragile economy is an absolutely terrible idea. Is there anyone (other than JPN) who think it IS  good idea?

That isn't change I can believe in.

Sigh.  I beg to differ with your definition of 'expansion of government'

Expansion of government means that you increasingly invest more in government or government programs than in prior years.

Obama is clearly NOT saying that he intends to do that.  Rather he's saying he wants to change some government priorities.

And if I apply your definition of expansion of government, McCain is proposing similar types of new programs. 

Now, where's your proof that he plans to raise taxes? 

I disagree. The day we opened the doors on our homeland security department, that was an expansion of government although it wasn't an investment in a prior program.


From his site...'Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.'

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/

You think raising taxes in any economy is a bad idea. That's why when your jokers are running things, you run up debts. Ending Bush's tax giveaways to to rich is just fine with me.

Basically, yes. But in an unstable economy, I can't image much one could do that would be worse.

So this is why my ears were burning...

I think raising taxes in a fragile economy is a bad idea. Neue, do you think raising taxes is ever a good idea, no matter the state of the economy or the budget?

Here's the thing. Right now we're in a kinda-sorta recession of some kind. The details will only be clear in retrospect, but we're clearly not doing well. If 60 years of economic history is a guide, this contraction will continue for a while longer, maybe several more quarters. Then the amazing American economy will right itself and hopefully we'll head off on a decade or so of robust growth. This optimistic forecase will be more likely if we elect a Democratic president in November, and less likely if we elect a Republican president. Here are several sources to back up this statement: finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/futureinvest/3022 and washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php.

If at this time next year, as President Obama and a Democratic congress are debating the details of the 2010 budget, the economy is as bad as it is right now, that will mean that our economy is in serious, serious trouble. If that is the case, raising any taxes would probably be a bad idea.
However, if the economy is recovering, then that would be an ideal time to reverse Bush's irresponsible tax cuts for himself and his rich friends, and restore the rates to where they were seven years ago. In fact, the economic timing would be similar to 1993, when, shortly after a recession, Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes on the rich, provided relief to the poor and middle class, and launched a decade of unprecedented economic prosperity.

So this is why my ears were burning...

I think raising taxes in a fragile economy is a bad idea. Neue, do you think raising taxes is ever a good idea, no matter the state of the economy or the budget?

Here's the thing. Right now we're in a kinda-sorta recession of some kind. The details will only be clear in retrospect, but we're clearly not doing well. If 60 years of economic history is a guide, this contraction will continue for a while longer, maybe several more quarters. Then the amazing American economy will right itself and hopefully we'll head off on a decade or so of robust growth. This optimistic forecase will be more likely if we elect a Democratic president in November, and less likely if we elect a Republican president. Here are several sources to back up this statement: http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/futureinvest/3022, http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_05/006282.php.

If at this time next year, as President Obama and a Democratic congress are debating the details of the 2010 budget, the economy is as bad as it is right now, that will mean that our economy is in serious trouble. If that is the case, raising any taxes would probably be a bad idea.
However, if the economy is recovering, then that would be an ideal time to reverse Bush's irresponsible tax cuts for him and his rich friends, and restore the rate to where they were seven years ago. In fact, the economic timing would be similar to 1993, when Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes on the rich, provided relief to the poor and middle class, and launched a decade of unprecedented economic prosperity.

Nope, we're saying exactly the same thing.  Bush has presided over the largest government expansion over the past 40 years, with the exception of 2 years of the Johnson administration.  Government expansion means one, and only one thing.  The government expands.  There's a larger government budget, normalized for inflation and such, year over year. 

Both candidates are proposing new programs that cost money.  Both candidates are proposing takeouts to fund their proposals.  We get to pick who we believe.  My assertion is that McCain, based on his stated intent to keep the war effort going on in Iraq indefinitely, will spend more money, and do less to compress government spending.  This is based on fact.  Your assertion is that Obama is a Democrat, so he taxes and spends, which is based on rhetoric and utter BS and no facts.


From his site...'Reverse Bush Tax Cuts for the Wealthy: Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers.'

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fiscal/
[/quote]

That doesn't mean that he plans to raise taxes.  The Bush tax cuts are not permanent cuts, they're temporary ones that expire in 2009.  So he's not raising taxes, he's putting them back to the same level that Bush 1 set them.  And he plans to cut taxes for poor and middle class families, as well as providing a variety of tax incentives for small business growth, reducing outsourcing to other countries, etc.

Again, he is not planning to raise taxes.  That's simply crap.

Are you speaking of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993?

Are you going to split hairs rather than respond to the larger thrust of my post because you can't refute it?

From what I read, the 'thrust' of your post is that larger taxes on the rich imposed by Bill Clinton and Democrats equal 'unprecedented economic prosperity'. I wanted to make sure we were talking about the same legislation.

I'm not trying to refute you. I'm trying to understand you.

Under Obama the top federal tax rate will be about 60%...

if you think taxing the wealthy is benificial why not make it 95%?

60%   :o

Where do you get this crap?  You have an active imagination.  The top tax rate is 39.1%, and it has been temporarily reduced to 35% until 2009 through the first Bush tax cut.  Obama has stated that he'll keep the Bush tax cuts, except for the top income bracket.  So, the only impact to taxes will be a 4% yty increase to the top bracket. 

If taxing the wealthy was the answer, then Carter would have his mug on Mount Rushmore by now.

Huh???   ???

Jimmy Carter actually was the first to reduce the capital gains tax, thus reducing the tax on the wealthy that was in place for years.

http://www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=475

http://blog.heritage.org/2008/07/01/morning-bell-the-tax-man-cometh/

No time to look further but it looks like Carter had taxes around 70%. Anyone have anything else on Carter?

A BLOG on Heritage.org?  Now that's one credible source <eye-roll>.  Not to be rude or anything, but if I posted a link to Michael Moore's site or moveon.org, you'd dismiss it in an instance. 

Here's what's ridiculous about this link.  He plainly states that the Bush tax cut will be allowed to roll back, indicating a 4% change in the marginal tax rate.  Everything else is dumb fear mongering.  He way overstates the FICA tax implication by multiples.  He then lumps in state taxes.  It's a ridiculous scenario.

But the facts are the facts, that that's what I posted.  There would be no way, absolutely no way to demonstrate marginal tax rates higher than about 35% during the Carter administration, regardless of what some clown on heritage.org wants you to believe.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/03/whose-economy-was-best/

Did you have anything on Carter except cap gains tax?

Obama wants to make people pay FICA taxes on all income.  So, if you make 500k a year and pay 39% in federal taxes, then 12% in Fica... thats how much? 51%   If you make 500k a year in Liberal terms you are RICH!!! And you dotn pay your fair share at 39% soooo he will increase your taxes.. how much is unsure as he wont actually lay out a plan.. but do you think it will be less then a 10% increase?

That would make it a 61% tax rate.... HOW IS THAT GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY as a whole???

Obama wants to make you pay FICA on all your income although you benifit will not be more then a person who paid fica on a 40k income.

So while you get the SAME benifits you pay 60K in fica taxes while someone that gets the SAME check will pay a whole lot less.

How is that fair?

Well, I kinda hate to admit this, but you're right.  I'm not sure how given the raw tax rates there can be a 70% marginal tax rate, but this is an irrefutable source, and there clearly was a potential of a top marginal tax rate of 70%.  FWIW, there was an earned income cap at 50%. 

This does show a slight decline in 1980, so I can claim to be a tiny bit right that Carter did reduce taxes a little by his reduction of capital gains taxes.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

Don't hate to admit it, dude. It shows you're a stand-up guy. I try and admit when I've been wrong although some people want to revel in it.

I'm not one of them...   :laugh:

Since when is FICA 12%?

http://www.jonescpa.com/fica_tax_rates.htm


Fiction, unless you've got a source.  That's not at all what he's saying. 

 Reagan swore to balance the budget in his first year in office... in fact that was the prominent campaign promise he ran on ...look what he left us.

I'm no expert on taxes other than continuing to pay them, nor am I an economist. I don't believe I  am  able to personally create an effective and coherent argument related to McCain's campaign promises for that reason, so I'll let this post from the New Republic as of today, to speak for me. 

McContradiction
What's worse than flip-flopping? Consistently promising two opposing goals at the same time

Robert Gordon and James Kvaal ,  The New Republic  Published: Wednesday, July 09, 2008

John McCain's fantastical pledge on Monday to balance the budget by 2013 through massive tax cuts and unidentified budget reductions deserved the bad reviews it received. But the most unfortunate element of his incoherent promise is that it's representative of his policy agenda these days. While the McCain campaign is trying to paint Barack Obama as a flip-flopper, the Arizona Republican is making diametrically opposed policy promises to different audiences at the same time. The contradictions are often in the details, but their obscurity is evidence of the campaign's cynicism.

The complete op ed IMHO is worth a read.  Confirming hyperlinks are also included with the complete article on the link.

http://www.tnr.com/story_print.html?id=f32048af-6a69-4594-8a9f-e99d213578c1

I don't see how saying, "I can do it in 4 years"... and then maybe saying you can't... and then realizing that you can is flip-flopping. If anything, it's saying things without thinking about them first and then maybe lying to cover your ass, which isn't much better, but isn't essentially "flip-flopping".

As a side note, I think that word is getting thrown around WAY too much since the election of 2004. It was this stigma that hurt Kerry's campaign the most, so each candidate is hoping to paint the other a waffler in the hopes of hurting him in the fall.

I'm getting a little tired of hearing it...

Abraxas, I agree with your comments about "flip-flopping," but I strongly suspect the accusations will not only continue, but increase following the conventions when the voting public, unlike we political junkies, actually begins to get involved in the issue differences between, not the "presumptive" but actual candidates. The MSM appears desperate for any issue to fill the 2/7 time frames and there is no petty statement by made by the various campaign surrogates or the usual pundits they won't use to fill the time. 

However, in the case of these claims by McCain, even a non-economist, other than balancing my personal budget and continue to "keep the wolf from the door" even with the
inflation levels some continue to deny, this one appears to be so out of left field and unrelated to reality, it's even obvious to me.   

This statement from the New Republic article I posted reflects another aspect of McCain's various contradictions (maybe a better term for the purpose of discussion?) an aspect those like you who are younger might have a particular interest in if you didn't read the total article.
 
"It's the same pattern on other issues as well. In March, McCain said to The Wall Street Journal that he supports "private savings accounts ... along the lines President Bush proposed," letting workers divert some of their Social Security contributions into accounts. But McCain's website says he supports more personal accounts only as a "supplement" to Social Security.

This is not a small difference. It was the crux of the massive fight over Social Security privatization three years ago. McCain told the Journal he would fix the website. Four months later, he hasn't."

 Yeah ...the word "flip flopper" is getting quite old and worn out.
 That being said , welcome to the J. Sydney McCain house of waffles.
(http://intellectualconservative.com/images/jhnmccn6.jpg)
 http://www.city-data.com/forum/2008-presidential-election/161223-mccain-s-waffling-incoherence-abortion-rights.html
 http://crapomatic.blogspot.com/2008/06/mccain-waffling-on-warrantless-wiretaps.html
 http://www.whatisleft.org/lookie_here/2006/07/mccain_waffling.html
 http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/michaelm/gG5G4g

I notice that the right-wing Washington Times article doesn't mention that Reagan's economy was on the back of annual deficits that almost tripled of the nation's accumulated debt, while Clinton's ended with a yearly surplus.

Do you really believe that McCain has suddenly "realized that he can?" I mean, really? If this were the case, don't you think that he might share just a little bit of his sudden enlightenment? Exactly how is this guy going to continue Bush's tax cuts, enact a whole raft of corporate tax cuts, and still balance the budget?

The fact of the matter is that McCain has changed his rhetoric, that's all. It would have been impressive for him to have said, "My friends, we can't balance the budget and continue Bush's tax cuts, so I've changed my position on them." But he can't because he's a Republican.

So what's this baloney about balancing the budget? It's just crap.

The other point I made in my original post was the almost complete lack of tough media scrutiny and reporting that his new, and utterly outrageous, claim has received.

Then you'd better suggest and pass significant spending cuts and be ready for fewer services.  Instead we've got pseudo-libertarians who won't take that step because they know the American people won't support it.  They'd rather run up the nation's "credit card debt" and tax their children instead.

How is that fair? Here's how.

In 1986 Reagan and Congress agreed to a Social Security "fix." Faced with the fact of the baby-boomer demographics, they raised the FICA payroll tax on all of us in order to generate a large trust fund which would then be tapped once the baby boomers were receiving benefits.

The trust fund portion of the budget was then used to mask the true size of yearly budget deficits in order to make the case for tax cuts, tax cuts that largely benefitted the wealthy. The cost of those tax cuts, however, are borne by all of us, but by the middle and lower classes most of all as we enjoy reduced federal benefits in many areas.

Now McCain has the nerve to call for across the board spending cuts on what's left, while promising to make the tax cuts permanent. There is lots of unfairness in the tax code, and the amazing, diminishing taxes on the rich from the 1960s through today is a large source of it. IMHO. The chart provided by Popeye, above, makes that clear.

By the way, 97% of Americans would not be affected by the change in the FICA tax Obama has proposed.
--boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/obama_talks_soc.html

You missed my point entirely.

Saying you're going to do one thing, realizing you can't and then saying you can isn't exactly flip-flopping. It may be lying (I don't know enough economics to say if he is) or it may be simple ignorance or maybe he's telling the truth... but it's not flip-flopping. Lying and stupidity aren't great qualities either... but again, it's not flip-flopping.

What Obama did about campaign finance is flip-flopping.

What McCain did about Bush's tax cuts is flip-flopping.

This isn't.

In fact, I think if it is addressed by Democrats as "flip-flopping" they only marginalize the whole debate, which could be that McCain doesn't know what he's talking about... if he really is wrong. I'm not saying one way or another... I just think the Democrats are focussing on the wrong aspect of McCain's comments.



... I've really gone OT, haven't I?

Sorry.

Sorry. What I was trying to convey is that raising taxes is not always wise (nor is cutting taxes always wise). However, raising taxes in the front end of an economic expansion is the best time to do so, and next year might just be exactly that time.

You're right. Sorry.

And you make a good point. The flip-flop charge was particularly damaging to Kerry, I believe, and now both sides are trying like hell to avoid being painted in that light while pointing to every change of position of their opponent.

My initial post would have probably been stronger if I had just pointed out the utter incoherence of McCain's stated support for balancing the budget while refusing to support policies that would actually bring that about.

It's not just your.

The Democratic body politic is doing the same thing in the media...

  I know I've said this time and time again.....but....


You all hold one common truth about both candidates, that neither one of their plans for balancing the budget is viable. Your all wondering how these plans could work when it's obvious that they will not work.  Without a drastic change in the political mindset, one in which drastic cuts in the size of the federal government and the size of our international standing forces are addressed, nothing is going to get any better any time soon.  Why wonder and guess if McCain or Obamas "plans" will work when the answer is to DRASTICALLY CUT THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND CLOSE 99% OF OUR BASES ON FOREIGN SOIL?  It will work, guaranteed. 
    The current system is killing America.  The law of the land is still the Constitution.  Let's follow it.

First, Retro, the last time we balanced the budget, less than a decade ago, we managed to do it without drastic cuts in the size of the federal government.

===============================

Here's an update on McCain's utter lack of any grip on reality:

Interview on CNN:

"ROBERTS: Senator, you can't get over the fact, though, that extending the Bush tax cuts, as you want to do, and adding in your tax cuts do take the deficit number -- we actually go from a $70 billion surplus to a $445 billion deficit.

MCCAIN: You can't seem to get over the fact that it's spending that's out of control. And you restrain spending and also you can't get over the fact that historically when you raise people's taxes, guess what, revenue goes down. Every time we cut capital gains taxes, there has been an increase in revenue. I'm glad to have this discussion with you, and obviously you disagree, but the facts are that when you keep taxes low, when you restrain spending, as we did in 1982 when Ronald Reagan came to office, then the economy grows. We've created 46 million new jobs since 1982, because of lower taxes, but the spending got out of control, and that obviously caused the deficit, which then caused us to have to borrow money from China, et cetera, et cetera. And that's our problem that we have today, is spending and not keeping taxes low and stimulating the economy."
watch it yourself, here: huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/08/mccain-talks-economy-on-c_n_111434.html

Let's examine what McCain's saying.
1. "...historically when you raise people's taxes, guess what, revenue goes down."
Not true. Discussion here: krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/16/taxes-and-revenues-another-history-lesson/

2. "Every time we cut capital gains taxes, there has been an increase in revenue."
Again, not true. When you cut capital gains taxes, revenues go down, save for short-term blips that reflect people wanting to cash in under the new rates.
"McCain also mentions that the CBO and others who have estimated the effects of cuts in capital gains taxes use "static scoring." According to Greg Mankiw, who was the chair of Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, even with dynamic scoring, cuts in the capital gains tax only recoup 50% of the revenue lost."  
Link with other links to various sources here: obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/07/even-more-mccai.html

  The problem is far more then "balancing" the budget.  Inflation caused by an over sized government's debasing the currency to attempt to pay their bloated bills is a big part of the problem.  The inflationary costs to every American is the highest and least understood "tax" we pay.  Its the difference in purchasing power between 1960 dollars and 2008 dollars, which hasn't a damn thing to do with balancing the budget.

Retro, I have no idea what you're talking about.

The budget problem is a predicament, as people oppose both spending cuts and tax increases. It is obvious however that McCain is not prepared to solve this issue:

Really?  Seems pretty plain.  Big Government=bad.  Small Government=good.  My interpretation of his last post....

Biker, this from Retro in indecypherable to me:

"Inflation caused by an over sized government's debasing the currency to attempt to pay their bloated bills is a big part of the problem.  The inflationary costs to every American is the highest and least understood "tax" we pay."