As I see it, there are certain functions that the federal government is “good” at and certain things they do poorly. For example, if I wanted to create program to feed everyone in the state of Iowa lunch, I could take $20M and give it to an elected committee who would come up with a process of buying food, chopping it up, cooking it, and distributing it throughout the state. Or, I could pay local restaurants to do the same. Since the restaurants are already doing this in their local markets, they have the infrastructure, personnel, and expertise in place. It would probably be more cost effective to allow the private sector to feed the people in this scenario.
However, defense, police, etc are all clearly better handled by the public sector.

I agree that anytime “spending cuts” are mentioned we need to be careful. There are many government programs that are helpful, and need to be handled by the government. Defense spending is obviously out of control and needs to be reigned in (Security represents 19% of the Federal budget, which is mostly Homeland Security, not DOD). Certainly there is fat that needs to be trimmed.

Interestingly, the 2008 Federal Budget shows a projected surplus beginning in 2012. So without doing a damn thing, either candidate should be able to balance it by the end of their fist term!

At the same time, I get also get nervous when people talk about taxing “the rich” to pay for MORE spending. The AMT is totally out of control and would I really like some clarity from Obama’s side on who is going to pay more taxes. A lot of people on the coasts that have been hit with housing bubbles, fires, etc. make more than $100k (as a family with two workers) and are paying state and federal income taxes that account for almost half of their income. Quite a few of these people are small business owners that employ others. If they are taxed MORE because they are “rich” (ie make over 100k per year) they may decide to go work for someone else where they can have more security. That’s not good either.
So, it sounds like we can agree that certain spending should be reduced, while other spending should remain, and we need to be VERY careful as to how we grow and/or maintain federal revenue without taxing people to death.
No?

Who decides what programs to cut? Congress? Well, shouldn’t Congress already be doing that through the Appropriations Committees, which allocates the funds for these programs? If the argument is that Congress is wasting money on bad programs (and McCain is referring to domestic programs, which numerous Americans directly benefit/ depend on?!?!?) than the answer should be getting more accountability out of these programs. For me, there is more accountability in procedures conducted by the state than there is in procedures conducted by the private sector, although it’s becoming harder to distinguish…

How about eliminating some of our foreign programs i.e. IRAQ, then we’ll see what’s really contributing to the deficit. The money that the Appropriations Committee gives to domestic programs is already accounted for, it’s measured as a percentage of the whole based on importance (or so one would hope). Surely, this cannot be the reason for our continuously increasing debt…

I totally agree with you on the spending cuts McCain suggests. Earmarks are almost insignificant. Realistically, no one, not even Obama, will be able to safely withdraw troops immediately, though. There is no way the current talks regarding a “Status of Forces” agreement between the US and Iraq will call for a hasty withdrawal. More likely, is a slow, steady reduction, with a few military bases remaining for a loooooong time.

Is there any good evidence that tax cuts/increases or government spending or anything else the president has influence on makes a difference in the economy? I mean, it makes sense that cutting taxes and spending helps, but is that actually the case?

Too bad McCain offers no realistic plan for cutting spending. He talks about earmarks, but they are a tiny portion of the overall federal budget. If we remain in Iraq with the type of force we have there today, there is no possible way McCain will be able to cut spending significantly. Obama’s plan to end our permanent large scale presence in Iraq is the best plan to cut spending either candidate is putting forth.

We just had a balanced budget at the end of the Clinton administration. Under Obama, we’ll be going back to the same tax structure we had under Clinton. Unlike the modern day Republican administrations, the Democrats’ tax plan has a proven track record.

Oh, forget the hat- go for the beer cooler!

Course, that would be balancing the book ‘Budgets for Dummies’ on his nose like a circus seal, but details, details…

Therefore, smoking is unquestionably cool! Thanks Jibber!

Any thoughts?

Oh – never mind. That was a rhetorical question.

If you’re constipated, close your eyes and ThinkNader. That outa help scare the shit out of you!

Hey, I just tried that – and it worked! I feel great now.

Awesome! You’ve sold me! From now on I’m gonna google crazy shit and whatever gets the most hits WINS!!! It solves every argument quickly and efficently… and no one can argue with the results!!!