Fiscal conservative here: Which candidate

[Jack Sprat]

has any plan to deal with the massive budget deficits created by this reckless administration? I heard much about pay-as-you-go budgeting in 06, but I have not heard anything during the 08 primaries.

[better tomorrow]

1. Obama's stand

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm

[fascisthunter]

2. there is such a thing left?

I am fiscally conservative, yet I am a liberal.

[Jack Sprat]

5. yeah, there is at least 2 of us.

For real, deficit budgets are the hardest on social spending. By design, I suspect.

[On the Road]

3. The "Goldwater Girl" Has Better Credentials

That is definitely one thing in her favor. I don't know why she hasn't used it more.

[Vincardog]

4. Presidents do not allocate monies. That is the job of the Congress.

[Jack Sprat]

6. No, but they can set policy standards

and goals. Just like the policy of the Bush administration was to cut taxes, wage war, and give a big party for the corporations, a president can certainly lead. * led us into hell. Don't tell me that a prez cannot affect a fiscal policy and a direction of leadership. It requires House spending bills, of course. But, if you plan on being the president elect and have a Democratic Congress, then you can certainly set goals and give them a push.

BTW, I did not think a prez could dictate an occupation of a foreign country, but I found out different.

[Vincardog]

8. The occupation of Iraq is now and will always be an illegal act of unprovoked aggression

it along with the irrational faux "Free Market" radicalism have let capital rove unchecked over our country and the major markets of the word.
Fortunately for the world the excesses of the free market are killing the economies and ending this round of unrestrained capital excesses.
AS we sink deeper into the new Great Depression we are left looking for our new FDR to re-regulate markets and lead us into a new age of public works building sustainable infrastructure and new zero waste manufacturing.

[Ichingcarpenter]

7. The military industrial complex doesn't want to lose its cash cow

. The U. S. military establishment

In 1991, at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. defense budget was $298.9 billion. In 2006, that budget had increased to $447.4 billion, and this does not included the $100 billion-plus spent in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. It is estimated that American military expenditures represent, at a very minimum, close to half of total world military outlays (48 percent of the world total in 2005, according to official figures), while the U.S. accounts for less than 5 per cent of world population and about 25 per cent of world total output. As a percentage, the U.S. military expenses gobble up a minimum of 21 percent of the total American federal budget (2006=$2.5 trillion). Such a military budget is larger than the gross domestic product (GDP) of some countries, such as Belgium or Sweden. It is sort of a government within a government.

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Defense employed 2,143,000 people, while it estimates that private defense contractors employ 3,600,000 workers, for a grand total of 5,743,000 defense-related American jobs, or 3.8 percent of the total labor force. In addition, there are close to 25 million veterans in the United States. Therefore, it is safe to say that more than 30 million Americans receive checks which originate directly or indirectly from the U. S. military budget. Assuming conservatively only two voting-age people per household, this translates into a block of some 60 million American voters who have a financial stake in the American military establishment. Thus the clear danger of a militarized society perpetuating itself politically.


http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1241.shtml