Dismayed Republicans flocking to Obama...

Well Sheik maybe his concern about a balanced budget is what drove him out of your party?

Afterall isn't most of the national debt being accrued under your republican administration?

And wasn't the second biggest deficit under your Reagan administration?

So if republicans want to talk balanced budget they are going pretty far back in history.

Sherman,

I agree that the Republicans have surrendered the balanced budget ideal and I concede the deficits of the Reagan and Bush years.

That is clearly not why Chafee bolted, however. And if he thinks Obama is going to balance the budget he will be disappointed.

Well Mike I dont see how anyone can look at the last four Administrations and conclude that the republicans are more likely to balance the budget.

On the contrary, the most balanced budget in recent history was during a Democrat administration.

Which year was that?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Obama makes Clinton look like Milton Friedman.

Well OC I edited the post for clarification.

Because I did not want to get in another discussion about whether the budget was technically "balanced".

The overall point I was making is that Dems have been more fiscally responsible than Rep's in recent years.

Are you ok with that?

What you say is defensible. Clinton was close to a balanced budget.

I don't see a whole lot of budget balancing from either side.

Just to be clear, Obama is proposing a sslightly larger increase then McCain is proposing over the current budget.

New Spending Proposed by 2008 Presidential Candidates
Candidate Total Proposed Spending Increase
(Annual, in Billions)*
McCain $68.5
Obama $343.6
Source: National Taxpayers Union Foundation calculations.
* From June 3rd release

source

I sort of hope he gets elected so he can dispel the notion of democrat fiscal responsibility.

Well OC and Aaron if we are gonna go on proposals, then we should include the whole package.

Including all those how many million jobs from green energy development, etc.

Plus the rollback of the tax giveaways to the wealthy and the reform of Soc Security to help the rich pay their fair share too.

It is all part of a package so not fair to just include the increased spending but not the anticipated new revenue.

Also dont forget the 3 Billion per week down the Iraq rathole.

(yes I know that is hidden and not in Bush's budget but still.)

1) You can't name any green development because it's not cost effective.

2) The SS change will not pass Congress because it's not a fair tax and not only will Republicans oppose it, so will most democrats.

3) How many small businesses are going to be hurt when Obama rolls back taxes? How many middle income familes are going to pay more taxes? Yes, we'll pay more in taxes but it will a negative effect on the economy.

4) Obama will not end the occupuation of Iraq as his $300,000,000,000.00 includes money for Iraq and if you believe otherwise, your either naive or...

In the end, just as Jimmy Carter was, Obama will be a one term ineffective President who will get nothing done that will require a strong consertative to come in and clean up his mess in 2013 as Reagan did in 81. Take it to the bank.

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

I don't see very many specifics to add in here.

Well ok then vote for McCain.

It dont matter he will win wv anyhow.

So your vote won't count anyway...

My vote probably won't count. I think I'm going to write in Ron Paul.

What is your problem with Bob Barr?

He will be on the ballot, probably.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Barr

The first reference I could find. Barr's Congressional record is not very Libertarian. Can a guy change his mind? Sure. What do we have to judge a candidate beyond his record? What he says? You know as well as I do that they'll say anything.