Politicians lie.... all of them. That's a fact, and one we need to live with.

So, being we can not trust what they say, based on ideology, and voting history, what do you think will happen? Here is the setup:

When you look at Obama's plan for change (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/), it's obvious we will not have enough money to pay for these things. Click through each on of those categories, and see what he is proposing. Every one I have read will cost more then it costs today.

So, like every other politician, he is promising more then he can deliver. The question is, where will he fold on his promises? Will he offer less services, or take more money from the middle class?

It is my opinion, that if push comes to shove, Obama would rather raise taxes and provide more of his services, then keep the promise of tax relief for the middle class. 

I think he will raise taxes. Your thoughts?

There's a chance he could pull a Bill Clinton and go "Oops, can't afford my tax cuts, the debt's worse than I thought, sorry, here's the biggest tax hike in history" and then the economy will soar to new heights and unemployment will go down for 8 years straight, especially for blacks and other minorities, and everybody will have jobs and health care and forget he flip flopped and the world will be a better place.

But, I guess that could be a bad thing if you're a "free market even when people are starving and freezing to death in the streets because charity instead of taxes should solve everything" kind of guy. Sorry if I sound like a dick and that's not really your angle on the free market. But I've heard that a lot recently from people in real life and on the internets and I don't like it when people die.

There's no chance he will raise taxes on the middle class. Not only is that a huge talking point of his, but its much easier to skimp on a government program that most people dont even know about than it is to raise everyone's taxes.

A lot of that stuff will be affordable by pulling out of the iraqi civil war... its costing hundreds of billions of dollars that would best be spent toward domestic priorities.

Obama will NOT raise taxes on people who earn less than $250k a year, which is 95% of the population.

Yet nobody ever does it.

Personally I think he's just going to default on most of his campagin promises outside of the few that are just big payoffs to his own state like his energy policy.

Not true. The cost of to the Defense department last year was 50 billion more then in 2001 (before we went to any war). Aside from the fact that Obama wants to raise the troop count by 92,000 people, put more troops in Afghanistan, he has 1 talking point (50 billion into the economy to help low income workers) that takes all the money he will save from pulling out of Iraq.

The war cost a lot when you are flying missions, and doing lots of operations, but when you are in peace keeping mode, it cost a lot less. Not as many ordnance being expended, fuel being used... remember, we have to pay and feed the troops no matter where they are. Having them deployed somewhere is an expense, but not the expense everyone touts. 

The only reason you say he won't raise taxes, is because he says he won't. He says a lot of things, most he can't deliver. Why is the tax one the one you believe?

Yea Ghost, that's what I want... for people to die...

Around 300 billion a year is given to charities. Far more domestic money for the poor then the government gives. A much larger percentage of that money comes from Republicans then Democrats (mainly due to faith based charities, and religious people tend to be republican). So, the argument that Republicans want people to die is insane.

No, I want a government that cares about 100% of the people, and is for 100% of the people. I don't want to sacrifice the freedoms of the top 5% just because it's easy, and they have money.

I am not a "give a man a fish" kind of guy. I am far more a "teach a man to fish" kind of guy, even if it cost more.

It's not about the money, it's about the ideology. Oh, and trust me, if you give a man the opportunity to work, and not working means dying, a man will work.. 100% of the time. No one will die.

Eliminating the defence budget would solve everything. If the US military was cut down to 'national defence only' and not able to be deployed everywhere, and no new contracts were made in terms of defence technology, that would pretty much pay for everything.

That's the worst idea I have heard since the spending freeze. No new technology? National defense only? I hate to tell you this, but alot of our enemies are not at "national defense only". I agree we can't deploy everywhere, but we have to deploy some places and who knows what those future places may be. It might come that we need to deploy in Ukraine, or some other Eastern European country, it may be that something happens in the middle east where deployment is necessary, or even somewhere in south america. What happens if a rogue states feels like since we are spending less it can act up more and cause trouble? We need to be ready, and not giinvg our troops the best equipment and scrimping on technology is the fastest way to make our army ineffective.

Sounds good. What benefit has the army had on American living standards? Versus how much drain on the budget?

America's enemies can be divided into two types: the organised ones like Russia, and the disorganised ones like Al-Qaeda. What use has hundreds of billions worth of technology had on the latter type? None. It's still pretty much a stalemate in Afghanistan and Iraq. For the former, they wouldn't dare really attack because it would damage their economy, which is dependent on yours. Russia made a few shows of power like Georgia, and their stock markets collapsed (more than everyone else's).

A dollar into education or healthcare would benefit Americans far more than the same dollar on defence.