Another example of why Media Matters is here. It furthers the conservative agenda by making Obama look worse than he deserves to look. If one is talking about increasing the deficit, and the opposing party's candidate will increase the deficit even more, mentioning how much Obama will raise it without mentioning that McCain will make it go up even higher makes Obama look worse than he deserves to look. Sure, his plan will increase the deficit, but not as much as McCain.

Who runs NBC?

It doesn't matter who runs NBC.

No one said it was conservative misinformation that was a diabolical plan with ulterior motives.

Media Matters doesn't allege bias.

That'd be something that you would do, as we've seen way too often.

Yea I agree BB and then these pundits ask why isn't Obama more ahead in the polls, or why do voters think Obama will raise their taxes?  It's misleading and not responsible journalism, but what consequences do these reporters face? I've written strong letters to MSNBC detailing my complaints with their reporting, I urge others to do more than just post here, but become involved...Palin/McCain would not only be a disaster for this nation but to the world.

Again, who runs NBC?

Westinghouse is the owner of NBC.

Or is it General Electric?

How would one tell the difference?

Well, for a little history.  When electricity was it it's early life, Westinghouse proposed that all supply be DC, while GE proposed AC (or is that backwards? Those of us there at the time sometimes have trouble remembering things exactly).

Westinghouse designed the first commercial AC system.

Yah there was a large feud going on betwee Edison and Tesla about the use of AC. Interesting times.

Hey Contessa, GW Bush's governance just yesterday added 3 trillinon dollars to the debt by bailing out AIG ( and other foreign run companies ).

Hey Contessa, your bio said you graduated cum-laude. Doesn't that mean anything to you anymore now that you got it ?

Cum laude. Isn't that like a B+ average?

It's all gonna get worse, too, as Obama rises in the polls. By mid-October, the MSM will be having a feeding frenzy against him.

Who hires these guys? Figuring this out isn't brain surgery, and yes, the explanation is that easy. 

 -- Sen. Barack Obama's spending and tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the national debt...Sen. John McCain's tax and spending plan would increase the debt by more than $5 trillion. -- mmfa

Two lousy candidates...two lousy proposals...promising everything to everybody...while delivering nothing but more outrageous debt.

Jeezus pete...the inmates are running the asylum.

and based on those two factors you quoted above,

which one would you rater have ? before you start typing, i said those two factors alone, nothing else.

Oh no you don't, wolf...you're not going to force me to take a bite out of either of those rotten apples.

But I'll tell you this...the numbers are all phony. And that includes the TCP, CBO and especially the candidates. The one dead bang certainty is that they will be higher when it's all said and done.

The spending is out of control...hell, I'll write in your name when I enter the polling booth if you can fix it.

just as i thought

And here we have another example of Wesley being a dishonest punk. They are not equivalent, Wesley. Obama has many better plans than McCain has, and Obama has a better grasp on how to expand our debt as little as possible. Blaming Obama for not being able to immediately undo what Bush has done is typical Republican hypocrisy.

If I didn't find it so repulsive of a thought, and I was a conspiracy theorist, I'd think that George Bush and Karl Rove and Dick Cheney conspired to not resolve the Iraq War so that it will burden the Democrats, and they conspired to mess up our financial markets and housing markets just to put the Democrats at a disadvantage over the next 4 years.

Yeah, that became apparet when GW Bush stated getting OBL was not important anymore, Christ, OBL attacked the USA in the homeland and killed 3000 innocent and 19 guilty. i can always hope for an earthquake to demolish his cave and bury him forever and uncerimonously.  It takes ba$$s to want to be president after GW Bush and Obama seems to be willing to sacrifice a second term to make the really tough choices to accomplish turning this nation around to a pre GW Bush status.

 -- Obama has a better grasp on how to expand our debt as little as possible -- bottleblonde

The issue should be reducing the debt...not which turdblossom can do the least harm. The "least harm" argument only makes sense when issued from the alimentary canal.

Mr Turdblossom himself would be offented by your free use of the term freely equating lesser beings to  Mr Karl "Turdblossom "Rove himself, the emperoir of the Rovian Empire.

The bulk of the money is locked up in medicare, defense, and paying interest on Bush's debt, as I've explained over and over again. ALL EARMARKS TOGETHER are only $20 billion. The sort of spending cuts that conservatives fantasize about can't touch the actual size of the deficit.

The only way to balance the budget is to raise taxes, which as Clinton proved can be done without any damage whatsoever. But thanks to your party, that can't happen.

Spending can be cut, Steeeeeeevie. For just a few years, fund government programs at 1 -2% points less than inflation instead of 3-5% points above and it will work out. Sacrifice for those involved? Sure, but we all have to sacrifice for the good of the future of the country.  You may be able to document only? $20 billion in earmarks, but there is certainly other waste in the budget. Two examples, Dept of Ag has more employees than there are farmers, Dept of Energy has more vehicles than employees. I wish one of the candidates, or both, would have the cajones to tell us we are all going to have to pay more to pay down the $53 trillion in unfunded liability in this country.  They don't because they are already running for a second term.  Looks like my vote goes third party this year, maybe a throwaway, but at least I can spend the next four years complaining instead of apologizing.

Department of Agriculture total discretionary spending: $23 billion. http://www.obpa.usda.gov/budsum/fy09budsum.pdf

Department of Energy total discretionary spending: $25 billion. http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/09budget/Content/Highlights/Highlight2009.pdf

And if you look at the stuff the budgets are for, they're things that a lot of people badly need. Cuts are possible, but not deep cuts, and even deep cuts only inch us a tiny bit closer to a balanced budget.

Conservatives are always stumped when asked to come up with an actual balanced budget. All they can do is yell "waste" a few dozen times. They can't actually itemize $300 billion in waste in a single year, because (outside of defense) it just isn't there.

Hey, I come up with a balanced budget every year, even managing to pay off debt, contribute to retirement, contribute to charity.  Again, Steeeeevie, it doesn't necessarily take deep cuts, but for example, inflation is 5%, but government grows budget by only 4%, instead of increasing it by 8%, there will come a day when spending and income will be in balance. Given the time, energy and inclination, I bet I could come up with close to $300 Billion (a combination of cuts and revenue enhancements), but I work at a day job and have other commitments.  I don't seem to have the idle time that a lot of posters here have (or they're posting on Company time).  I used two examples only and you mentioned decretionary spending only, so I assume those Depts budgets are in reality larger and could be pared.  $300 Billion is 10% of the Federal Budget, almost anyone should be able to take at least 4% of that figure out without hurting anyone significantly. Maybe some day, when I retire, I'll show you how its done.

That was very well said, Oscar.

The federal revenue goes up every year...whether we raise taxes or cut taxes...it's just a matter of how much it increases. Your plan for reduced spending is the only way we'll ever lower the debt. It's a spending problem not a tax problem.

3 Trillion dollars is damn sure enough money to run an effective fed.govt.!

You are full of it, you dishonest punk.

Of course who can do the least damage in some ways, as well as the most good in other ways, is the person we need to pick. To insist that Obama has to do the impossible, and ignoring the hole he'll be in because of what Bush has done, is conservative misinformation - its aim is to make Obama look worse than he deserves to look.

Have you always been a dishonest punk, Wesley?

Hey, Wesley.  Are you POV's brother? BB seems to think you are related (dishonest punk). ;>)

And here we have another example of Wesley being a dishonest punk. They are not equivalent, Wesley..

No, didn't you know? They're all the same-- that's what the news tells me.

it is all part of the stupidity of many in the media to think that Obama is the tax and spend candidate while McCain is not. Yet a GOP President has done more socialist acts since FDR and Bush is no FDR.

FU Contessa, get the facts straight.

It is astounding how the current crop of the GOP candidates tend to not identify themselves as such and run on the " we together " need to fix the problem.Simply astounding and thanks to Chris mathews for being the first to publicly notice the drama. Dino Rossi, here in the state of Washington is using that tactic to convince the publich he is for change and will work across party lines to serve the state.. I say bulls$$t. when things are good, it its because i was good, when things are bad, we must all share in the responsibility. what a bunch of fishs$it..

Rossi is a piece of crap.  I love the way his ads claim he's going to solve the state budget crisis and protect the most vulnerable all without raising taxes. Oh yeah and he won't get caught up in partisanship.  There is actually very little partisanship in WA state politics except for Republicans whining because nobody wants to vote for them.

Yet a GOP President has done more socialist acts since FDR and Bush is no FDR.

Yes, but it's socialism for the rich. For the rest of us, it's free enterprise. 

But, McCain's gonna do that supply side voodoo that cons do so well (sounds better in the second person).  And it'll magically bring more tax revenue in than the amount it reduces.  Just like they keep telling us it does.

I have stated before that Contessa Brewer has to be one of the dumbest people anchoring on TV. She does not know how to think, she just reads off a teleprompter. I would like to know when she got her GED.

But I'll tell you this...the numbers are all phony. And that includes the TCP, CBO and especially the candidates.

Aside from the candidates, why are the numbers from the TCP and CBO phony?

Have you ever checked their track record on projections for budgets/spending/revenue?

If you had...you wouldn't have needed to ask the question.

neither should be proposing increasing the debt.  we are going to get to the point where we are simply unable to pay any of this debt off, because we will be paying more in interest than anything else.  we need to return to the clinton tax rates.  i will pay a few more dollars, but i don't mind.

Maybe the flat tax proposal years ago might gather some momentum. I agree with all sharing the burden but i also agree we should not let the bufoons that got us in this arena should run off to crawford and retire on a fat pension with no care in the world.

a straight  flat tax is generally regarded as a regressive tax, placing more of a burden on the lowest incomes.  generally the clinton tax rates, perhaps indexed for inflation, would still fall mainly on the wealthy.  when i say i would pay a few dollars more, that's talking about the last several thousand of my income,  and the rate i'm paying, i think it's 25 percent,  would go up a couple percent, so it really would only be a small amount.   most of the rest is taxed at around 15. 

Most flat tax proposals I've seen include generous basic personal deductions, making the tax a little more progressive than you state.  I wouldn't mind seeing a two tier flat tax, one rate up to say a figure of about 50% more that my income and a second rate for incomes beyond that point. (Taxes are only fair if only those earning more than me are paying, afterall).

then if it is progressive, if  it does have different personal deductions, then it's not a flat tax.  it may be simplifying the tax code but it's not a flat tax.