McCain: “No New Taxes”
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, McCain, TaxesRead his lips, err…
WASHINGTON – Republican John McCain says there will be no new taxes during his administration if he is elected president.“No new taxes,” the likely GOP presidential nominee said during a taped interview broadcast Sunday.
McCain told ABC’s “This Week” that under no circumstances would he increase taxes, and added that he could “see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates,” as well as giving people the ability to write off depreciation and eliminating the alternative minimum tax.
Wow, what an incredibly irresponsible thing to say. He has no idea what’s going to happen and to pledge something like this is just plain dumb. Didn’t he learn anything from Bush I?
One thing’s for sure, he’s really selling out to the Club For Growth wing of the Republican party, and he really doesn’t have to. What a shame.
This entry was posted on Monday, February 18th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, McCain, Taxes. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
February 18th, 2008 at 11:36 am
“Wow, what an incredibly irresponsible thing to say.”
Wow…no it is not. It is fairly simply. You see Justin, there is this other thing that you can do…cut spending. With the current Dems debate: “My plan is more socialist than yours.” It is nice to have at least one person that at least is paying lip-service to the idea that maybe, just maybe government should try to limit its own insatiable quest to redistribute income.
Now Justin, be honest, how many pictures/posters of Obama do you have up in your bedroom? Have bought that life-size Obama cut-out? You do have “A Change We Can Believe In” as the ring-tone on your cell phone, right? OMG, he soooooooooooooooooooooo hot!!!
February 18th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Haha, okay…McCain will keep every military option on the table to defend our country’s sovereignty, but he won’t keep every economic option on the table to defend this country’s bottom line? And by the way, I would also think it’s irresponsible for a Presidential candidate to say they won’t use nuclear force to defend this nation. Just FYI.
February 18th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
We are in agreement regarding the nuclear option.
We fundamentally disagree on the “bottom line” issue. The bottom line should be dealt with visa vi cuts in spending. I am not a budget hawk, but I would agree that the deficit should be controlled. Again, the primary means of doing this should be to drastically cut spending. Of course, cutting spending is no fun in a presidential campaign these days. It is all about the give-away: we’ll give you free healthcare, free education, we’ll subsidize your energy, free daycare, and we’ll play world-police nation-builder to boot. All of your problems will be solved by the federal government. Because we have done such a good job in the past.
Good God your a fair-weather friend, not a month ago you were all about Ron Paul. If there is a band-wagon, you are on it, till a bigger one comes by.
February 18th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“Cut spending” is the processed, freeze-dried, white-label, generic, pre-recorded mantra of old, senile Reagan-era Republicans. Empty rhetoric! Very few self-proclaimed conservative and/or Republican politicians have ever been willing to outline specific cuts. And if they did, they usually came up short at the ballot box.
1) What, specifically would you cut?
2) How would you get a bipartisan, bicameral legislature to back you said cut(s)?
3) In what way(s), if any, would you mollify or reassure those that will “suffer,” because of your cuts, that its really in their best interest?
As to bandwagon: What am I, a former Ron Paul supporter, supposed to do now, anyways? I gave a few bucks… I talked him up, both online and in the “real world.” The day of the Republican caucus in my hometown, I went down to the VFW, had a couple of stale donuts, listened to even “staler” rhetoric, then cast my vote for Ron Paul. What happened? “My fellow constituents,” most of them socially-paranoid, Evangelical wingnuts, gave the state to Mike-F**kin’ Buck-A-Tooth!
So… what now?
Well, for one, if you look through some of my past posts here, I can tell you that I researched the possibility of achieving ballot access in all 50 states for Mr. Paul. If a black woman named Lenora Fulani was able to get on the ballot in all 50 states IN 1988… without the help of the Internet… it should be a cake walk for Ron Paul supporters, don’tcha think?
I’d be willing to do it. I’d be willing to get a clipboard, some petition forms, and go through the neighborhoods in my town, door-to-door, and gather signatures to get his name on the November ballot, here in Kansas.
Guess what?
HE
DOESN’T
WANT
IT!!!
I don’t know about anyone else, but when I’m on a “bandwagon” and the driver of said wagon deliberately turns into a dead-end street and comes to a dead stop… and tells all the passengers, “Sorry folks, but I made a promise to the folks back home–I know I could take the left turn at Albuquerque and go even farther, straight up the middle, all the way to the White House–but I’m not!” In a situation like that, when it’s been made quite clear to me that there are no other options… I’m gonna go elsewhere.
By choosing to not even consider a 3rd-party or “independent” run, Ron Paul has abandoned millions of people in many states.
On the one hand, it’s admirable that he wants to remain loyal to his supporters back home; on the other hand, does anyone really think those supporters in his home district would think ill of him if he did decide to abandon his congressional re-election, for a shot at all the marbles? Is it not common to want the best and biggest successes for people we admire, people we care about?
BTW, when campaigns end… isn’t it common for the Guilianis, the Thompsons, the Edwards’… to endorse somebody else, and encourage their supporters to make the switch, as well?
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
http://www.uscentrist.org
http://www.americanplan.org
February 18th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
In fact, the political difficulty is one of the very points that I was making — because we’ve turned into an absolute entitlement-whore society.
But to answer #1: I would across the board slash all programs by 50%, except for defense spending.
Answer #2: I would tell people that “I am the hope you have been waiting for” and that I was “fired up and ready to go” and that this is the “Hope that you can believe in”.
Answer #3: In the same way that swine ween the piglets from the tit. I would not. I might throw something in about “not asking what your country can do for you, just don’t rip off your neighbor.”
February 18th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Dos is correct. The “entitlement mindset” is harder to vanquish than the actual slashing of ineffective programs people have come to depend on.
However, in the same manner a wise parent finds the courage to kick his adult “child” off to the curb, with the intent to create a sense of self-responsibility, so the government needs to make some tough decisions and kick a few million people out of the ’safety-net’ that is, government over- dependency.
Initially, there will be clamor and anger. Recriminations will fly. People will play their guilt-trip card, but if the government doesn’t give in and acquiesce, some will mature into productive citizens. At least, there is hope.
No chance of that ever coming to pass if we spoon feed them forever.
Absolutely, concur with maintaining defense spending.
February 18th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Elisabetta and Dos display the typical ignorance of the ideologue. The truth is that the system they blindly worship does not and will not provide enough jobs that pay enough to live in this country. It’s a simple fact. In addition they ignore the disabled, some of whom can’t work, others of whom can’t get a job that pays enough to live on (especially if they have extra medical expenses) and others who can work but employers just won’t hire. They ignore the expense and necessity of higher education. The list goes on and on and on. But ideologues don’t care. It’s grab for the simple answer to complex questions. Look at Elisabetta’s easy, bigoted dismissal of people she doesn’t even know as being spoon fed dependents. Her “solution” has no wisdom to it, just the willful ignorance of the political right wing nutcase.
February 18th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
But to answer #1: I would across the board slash all programs by 50%, except for defense spending.
So if you personally had to cut some of your personal spending, you would cut housing, food, and entertainment equally. Why not cut the spending least needed, like, say entertainment. To use across the boards cuts is stupid.
THis debate is a classic among ideologues. The answer is simple: RAISE taxes and CUT spending.
February 19th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I read Pd’s analogy to a home budget and laughed, because there’s some truth to it, but come on let’s be honest. It’s apples and oranges.
If you start with the assumption that you cut food because you’ve been eating out at Le Shishi every night; and move to a one bedroom apartment, because there’s no need for a single person to rent a 5 bedroom/4 bath then that statement starts to make sense.
Your assumption is that they’re living modestly, but are just wasteful with respect to entertainment. Their assumption is that they’re living beyond their means with respect to housing, food AND entertainment.
That type of dismissal is straight out of Debate Fallacies 101.
February 19th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
That was rich!
Jim S., in typical liberal form accuses others of sticking to dry ideology; all the while he demagogues from start to finish.
Perchance, if Jim had stopped to ask a few pertinent questions or some clarification, he may have been ‘shocked’ to find out that I support helping the disabled and those that find themselves in a crunch. In fact, my comments were general and didn’t single out anyone in particular.
Nonetheless, Jim, instead of availing himself of feedback, chose to excoriate. It’s fair to say he gave ample display of his own intolerant prejudices against those who do not believe it is the government’s job to provide for able individuals.
That reminds me of another episode with a similar harebrained liberal. Some time ago during a discussion with such liberal about the great number of people that leech on the government for myriads of things, this ‘loving’ liberal adamantly posited that “Society Has No Right To Expect People To Fend For Themselves†and in his perverted compassion he advocated “the government has a responsibility to support people who CHOOSE not to earn a living, etc.â€
Although, he couldn’t answer the question: What if everybody decided to quit working?
Ergo, from my standpoint it is this kind of ‘moronic caring’ inculcated in people like Jim S., from the left-wing loony bin that keep many enslaved to the government. To be honest, there is nothing benevolent about that mindset.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Dear Elisabetta or Dos, please tell me the last time a republican president offered up a budget that actually cut spending. We would need to cut spending by about a trillion a year to even start to makje a dent in the debt. They always say they will cut spending and they never do but the sheep just keep buying it. If you were even remotely honest, you would admit that we must do both spending and taxes.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am
The Congress – yes your local representative – has no spine. They want to be re-elected, but they don’t want to do their jobs. They want campaign contributions, but they don’t want to do their jobs. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. Shrub’s tax cuts were nothing more than a tax increase deferment. There are countervailing pressures in the government that Shrub helped bring to bear on the issue of entitlement.
Simply put (now say this with a Bush accent) “if we spend all the surplus, cut taxes for the rich, and borrow well beyond our ability to afford it then we can legitimize our belief that government does not work”. They are spending all your tax dollars so that the choice is simple…..be eaten by terrorists (give money to defense) or spend the money on social programs run by the incompetent agencies of the government. The “framing” of the issue by the New Conservatives is always a dour choice that forces a liberal or a conservative selection – because that’s how they frame it.
What if I asked…Should the federal government be in the business of redistributing the nations tax dollars (primarily derived from individual tax payers) between business and private citizens? Should the federal government be in the business of providing lavish subsidies to big business? Should the federal government be allowed to have a massive debt obligation that siphons off tax revenue from the average citizen and redistributes it back into the international banking system? Should the federal government be required to balance the budget? Should the federal government be required to prioritize domestic spending over defense spending? You see it isn’t the argument that is as important as the framing of the argument – and the framing of the argument is being very effectively controlled by bullies who call themselves conservatives, but really are just thugs.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:12 am
The Congress – yes your local representative – has no spine. They want to be re-elected, but they don’t want to do their jobs. They want campaign contributions, but they don’t want to do their jobs. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. Shrub’s tax cuts were nothing more than a tax increase deferment. There are countervailing pressures in the government that Shrub helped bring to bear on the issue of entitlement.
Simply put (now say this with a Bush accent) “if we spend all the surplus, cut taxes for the rich, and borrow well beyond our ability to afford it then we can legitimize our belief that government does not work”. They are spending all your tax dollars so that the choice is simple…..be eaten by terrorists (give money to defense) or spend the money on social programs run by the incompetent agencies of the government. The “framing” of the issue by the New Conservatives is always a dour choice that forces a liberal or a conservative selection – because that’s how they frame it.
What if I asked…Should the federal government be in the business of redistributing the nations tax dollars (primarily derived from individual tax payers) between business and private citizens? Should the federal government be in the business of providing lavish subsidies to big business? Should the federal government be allowed to have a massive debt obligation that siphons off tax revenue from the average citizen and redistributes it back into the international banking system? Should the federal government be required to balance the budget? Should the federal government be required to prioritize domestic spending over defense spending? You see it isn’t the argument that is as important as the framing of the argument – and the framing of the argument is being very effectively controlled.