I am an independent who is voting Obama next week. I have an honest question for the mainly fervent Obama supporters here at Salon. I am not a troll, or anything like that.

Obama is to me the better candidate than McCain: smarter, calmer, more vibrant, and able to be a real consensus builder and I think adjust his tack as circumstances demand. I am also dismayed by the tone of the McCain campaign, and the nomination of Palin was ridiculous.

That said, my reluctance comes from being the classic 'social liberal, economic conservative' type. Not libertarian unfettered markets always right conservative but more let's try to control the deficit and let the American economy do what it does best, build wealth. With a Dem congress assured, Obama won't really have to build consensus, he will likely have kind of a free ride. I am ok with raising taxes on income for those making 250K+, but I am a little concerned with all of the additional spending he wants. Some of it might make sense but this country is in a deep hole and more spending is not a good long term answer.

My question is: is anyone here as concerned with the level of spending Obama and a Dem Congress may enact as I am?

If I get flamed for this, oh well. Trying to ask an intelligent question.

Briefly, yes, I enjoyed Sarah Palin's debate performance. Your post is crude and contains religious invective, which I find offensive, so I will not say more.

but I am a little concerned with all of the additional spending he wants. Some of it might make sense but this country is in a deep hole and more spending is not a good long term answer.

Most of the 'spending' you are talking about will be paying off bills. Bills run up by Bush, the anti-government clown who is trying to 'starve the beast,' i.e., deprive the government of money so that it will close up regulatory agencies, shut down social safety nets and do anything other than lavish money on independent contractors-corporations.

As for health care, you are being ripped off daily by health insurance companies which operate outside the laws the rest of us have to follow. Why don't these laws apply to insurance companies? Because their lobbyists paid off members of congress to give them a special deal. I want the option of a national health plan. And it will cost me money - tax money - but it will be money I would have been paying to the insurance companies anyway. Am I afraid of "government-run health care"? No. My mother has it, it's called Medicare. She is a conservative, but she does not turn down Medicare. No working class conservative I know who hates taxes declines Medicare.

I hope my taxes will be raised to pay off this horrible debt and to pay for a national health plan.

How about an unsolicited conservative response instead?

You don't have much to worry about re: new spending. If there is a recession next year, tax revenues will plummet. We will barely have enough to pay for existing programs, and will probably run even greater deficits. Barney Frank has said we will borrow and spend a little bit more in the near term on a stimulus package, then raise taxes later, which will have to be coordinated with the 2010 election (long before, or shortly after) so the election does not become a referendum on the tax hike. Taxes will go up eventually on those making much less than $250,000; I would predict about a 10% hike on everything above $80,000; i.e., the high end of your typical teacher/union member who supports the Democratic party. Those taxes will barely cover the bailout cost, the deficit, and yes, the Iraq War. Most likely, the Iraq War will not end any time soon -- if the new Iraqi government were even 50% as stable as our government says it is, we would have begun withdrawing troops by now. One of Obama's first orders as president-elect will be to stay the course for as long as the eye can see in Iraq (cloaked in some conditions-on-the-ground sloganeering to appease the faithful), and a second will be to abandon the middle class tax cuts, just as Clinton did in 1993. Any tax hikes will be needed to pay the crushing debts Obama will inherit from Bush, as well as address the recession. He may eventually get around to his tax rebate checks for the working poor who pay no federal income tax, but I wouldn't look for it immediately. It won't be a very fun way to start an administration. But Reagen's beginning wasn't very pleasant either, and he eventually won reelection in a landslide.

the capitalists will sell you the rope used to hang them. that's just because he didn't know about junk mortgages and derivatives and such.

@msgkings

Remember the Clinton administration? Remember that we had budget surpluses at the end of it?

What transpired since then? 1) We cut taxes on the very wealthy 2) We invaded Iraq.

Obama is proposing to reverse both of those decisions. Will that get us partying like its 1999? Probably not, but we'll be a lot closer just from those two decisions.

There are also very nice benefits to shifting spending priorities away from the Bush Crime Family cronies. For one, genuine social spending tends to be relatively cheap by the inflated standards of Bush-era spending. For example, the SCHIP health insurance program that Bush vetoed would cost $12 billion per year. That about ONE MONTH of spending on the occupation of Iraq.

There is also the 'wealth multiplier' effect that domestic spending produces that war spending does not. Building a bridge means that more people get where they want to go more quickly, resulting in increased economic activity that can be taxed.

Building a tank means either A) Having it sit in storage or B) Having it go out and get blown up. Neither produces any wealth multiplier or new tax revenue.

Will everything be sweetness and light with an Obama/Democratic government? Probably not, for we still have the national hangover from the $45 trillion dollar debt party we've racked up in the past 50 or so years. But I believe Obama's social spending will be a relatively small component of the overall picture.

Get out and vote! (Either way)