US heading for record $490 billion budget deficit.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos


In McCain's case yes, and then some. In Obama's case, not even close.

Except that McCain plans not only to maintain the Bush tax cuts, he wants more of them. Tax cuts are also hits to the Federal books, ones that that site you provided does not address.

[Patroklos]

Feel free to povide what the estimated tax revenue gain/loss of Obama and McCain's plans are, otherwise we have the numbers given.

What did government revenue do over the last five years?

Lots and lots of overpriced stealth destroyers.

Yeah, I fondly remember that thread you lost too

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Feel free to povide what the estimated tax revenue gain/loss of Obama and McCain's plans are, otherwise we have the numbers given.

So you admit the numbers are incomplete? Good.

What did government revenue do over the last five years?

Trick question, or are you oblivious?

[Patroklos]

So you admit the numbers are incomplete? Good.

Yeah, I didn't think you wanted to do that. Luckly for you, a very good summary on the candidates tax policy relative to revenue is included on site I sourced the spending numbers on

Maybe you should have checked before being an *******

Trick question, or are you oblivious?

I am just hoping maybe you will graduate to actual positions and arguements instead of wallowing in one liners. I know, a dreamer.

You could also try not being a dick when nobody is attacking you. I know, a dreamer.

[Arrian]

As I understand it, Obama's spending plan includes explanations about where the money is going to come from, and conform to PAYGO rules.

McCain's plan is apparently to cut taxes more, crank up military spending some more, and magically balance the budget.

I don't like either plan. I want some serious cuts, combined with a rollback of Chimpy's tax cuts so that we run surplusses and start paying down debt. But given the two choices... I've had enough of Republican budgetary fairy tales.

-Arrian

[Patroklos]

McCain's plan is apparently to cut taxes more, crank up military spending some more, and magically balance the budget.

Homeland Security and Law Enforcement
$10.173 Obama
$1.500 McCain

National Defense and International Relations
$13.808 Obama
$3.917 McCain

*in billions

And their tax policy, unless Oerdin has something against the brookings institute as well. It is unflattering to both.

Although both candidates have at times stressed fiscal responsibility, their specific non-health tax proposals would reduce tax revenues by $3.6 trillion (McCain) and $2.7 trillion (Obama) over the next 10 years, or approximately 10 and 7 percent of the revenues scheduled for collection under current law, respectively. Furthermore, as in the case of President Bush's tax cuts, the true cost of McCain's policies may be masked by phase-ins and sunsets (scheduled expiration dates) that reduce the estimated revenue costs. If his policies were fully phased in and permanent, the ten-year cost would rise to $4.0 trillion, or about 11 percent of total revenues.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=411693

[GePap]

Hmmm, so the Brookings institute's numbers back my point, (shocking, no?) which was that when talking about upcoming deficits, one needs to look at both promised increases in spending and promises to cut earnings, both of which lead to deficits. And those numbers put McCain's effects on the budget as much more significant than Obama's.

Neither the Brooking's numbers nor the NTU's numbers are close to definitive, but on the budget both candidates are promising things that if delivered will continue to expand the debt.

As for specific spending issues, I have no problem with Obama pledging over 100 Billion in infrastructure spending. We as a country have severely underfunded infrastructure for the past 20 if not 30 years, and our crumbling roads and bridges, aged rail system, and outdated air traffic control system all need upgrades, and the longer we wait to fix them, the worse the cost will be at the end. At least Obama sees the problem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think what Patty was showing is that Obama's claims for PAYGO are highly fanciful.

[Ramo]

The bottom line, though, is that McCain's plan would lead to a significantly larger deficit than Obama's as Patty's cite from the Tax Policy Center spells out.

One caveat is that, AFAIK, they don't seem to include certain proposals such as health care and climate change legislation. For example, IIRC Obama's health care proposal costs ~$80 billion/year, and revenues from a 100% auction carbon trading system such as Boxer-Sanders will be ~$300 billion/year.

[Ramo]

I should add that deficits are fine as long as we're investing in programs that have a high rate of return. Health care (specifically, more preventative care) and infrastructure, for example, are perfectly reasonable justifications for running deficits. More tax cuts for the uberwealthy - not so much...

[Patroklos]

Hmmm, so the Brookings institute's numbers back my point, (shocking, no?)

Obama's spending outpaces is smaller revenue reduction.

If we use the numbers given, which is wholly inaccurate as we know yearly budgets will fluxuate considerably regardless of who is in power (not to mention circumstances), we get just from proposed increased spending an additional deficit of 548B for McCain and 2,748.8B for Obama alone for two terms.

Add in their proposed tax policy (adjusted to 8 years since the TPC used 10) and you get a loss of 2880B for McCain and 2160B from Obama due to reduced revenues.

So, all told from the cursory and nowhere near accurate eight year projection given the numbers we have, over two terms as president deficit spending for each candidate is...

Obama: 4901B
McCain: 3428B

There is definetly a clear winner there, and both need to be shot.

[Jon Miller]

A republican spending less than a democrat? Not in my lifetime.

JM

[Ramo]

The TPC mentioned that they included the candidates' proposed spending increases (with some exceptions). I don't think you can casually combine those numbers together.

[Patroklos]

It says they included only "non health taxes proposals" for those numbers, so it should just be a measure of money coming in.

Thos health related tax proposals could drastically change those numbers.

[Ramo]

Add in their proposed tax policy (adjusted to 8 years since the TPC used 10) and you get a loss of 2880B for McCain and 2160B from Obama due to reduced revenues.

Bad accounting.

That ratio is based on the McCain tax cuts not being made permanent after a given amount of time. In other words, the last two years (for example) may not include the McCain tax cuts, so that ratio over 10 years certainly can't be used to represent 8.

Plus, the assumption McCain doesn't want the cuts to be made permanent is a ridiculous one. Bush, for example, wants his tax cuts to be made permanent, and McCain's explict justification for flip-flopping on the Bush tax cuts is that he doesn't believe in revoking already passed tax cuts.

Edit: I think you're right about spending.