The McCain Thread

[fifthfiend]

I found an interesting site. LINK

A bunch of his thoughts on Taxes

That link is kind of out of date, McCain's changed his tune on taxes significantly since 2000.

 

[rdh007]

That link is kind of out of date, McCain's changed his tune on taxes significantly since 2000.

...and not necessarily for the better.

 

[StorminNorman]

Because those tax cuts have made our lives sooooooooo much ****in' better in the last eight years, right? Hey guys, remember how the last eight years was TOTALLY AWESOME thanks to Bush's tax cuts, with no stagnant economy or collapsing housing market or bankrupt state governments or crumbling national infrastructure or anything totally awful like that?

Actually throughout most of Bush's Presidency the economy has been incredibly strong - in fact those tax cuts help bring us out of the recession Clinton left us in.

I don't know if nobody ever bothered to teach McCain math or Alzheimers has claimed his ability to do basic arithmetic but somebody should really ask him how we're ever going to pay for the fantastically expensive war which he has enthusiastically cheerleaded for the last seven years and which his tax-cuttin' buddy Bush has financed via record-setting budget deficts, without putting through any kind of tax increases?

And if he starts to say something about the Laffer curve seriously, just lock him up somewhere where he can't do more harm than he already has.

You do know that McCain has been one of the loudest GOP critics of the handling of the war, right? Yes - true cheerleader

You can balance the budget without increasing taxes, however even if you couldn't - to try to raise taxes right now when the American people are being financially ****ed is pure madness.

Also - the Alzheimers comment was so absolutely insulting, stupid and disgusting that your opinion really doesn't matter.

 

[StorminNorman]

That link is kind of out of date, McCain's changed his tune on taxes significantly since 2000.

Because he knows that not letting the tax cuts continues equates to a tax increase. The article mentioned it - reading comprehension is not really good eh?

 

[rdh007]

Except that it isn't a tax increase.

 

[fifthfiend]

You can balance the budget without increasing taxes

Not without a. massive budget cuts which would ruinously affect the lives of millions of Americans, or b. cutting the military budget, which McCain will never do

You Actually throughout most of Bush's Presidency the economy has been incredibly strong

By which you mean rich people have gotten much richer. Whereas the vast majority of Americans have experienced stagnation or loss.

however even if you couldn't - to try to raise taxes right now when the American people are being financially ****ed is pure madness.

Except that the rich people which benefitted from Bush's tax cuts and which the tax increases would affect have been doing quite well financially and at the rest of the country's expense, which is why right now when everyone who isn't a millionaire is doing so badly is just the time for the government to use that money to do some actual good.

Also - the Alzheimers comment was so absolutely insulting, stupid and disgusting that your opinion really doesn't matter.

Which is why you spent two posts responding to me.

Because he knows that not letting the tax cuts continues equates to a tax increase.

Wow, that was a total non-sequitor.

 

[rdh007]

Actually throughout most of Bush's Presidency the economy has been incredibly strong - in fact those tax cuts help bring us out of the recession Clinton left us in.


You do know that McCain has been one of the loudest GOP critics of the handling of the war, right? Yes - true cheerleader

You can balance the budget without increasing taxes, however even if you couldn't - to try to raise taxes right now when the American people are being financially ****ed is pure madness.

Also - the Alzheimers comment was so absolutely insulting, stupid and disgusting that your opinion really doesn't matter.

The economy's been strong since 2000? We're still blaming this on Clinton? The people only now are getting ****ed?

I disagree on all these counts.

Published: June 7, 2005 in the NY Times:
In last Sunday's Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.

President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same.

 

[Orson_Randall]

Actually throughout most of Bush's Presidency the economy has been incredibly strong - in fact those tax cuts help bring us out of the recession Clinton left us in.


.

the round about ignorance of the GOP party, never ceses to amaze me

 

[fifthfiend]

The economy's been strong since 2000? We're still blaming this on Clinton? The people only now are getting ****ed?

I disagree on all these counts.

Published: June 7, 2005 in the NY Times:
In last Sunday's Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.

President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same.

Your familiarity with the work of David Cay Johnston is laudable.

 

[StorminNorman]

Except that it isn't a tax increase.

When you allow a tax cut to run out - taxes rise to where they were before.

 

[StorminNorman]

Not without a. massive budget cuts which would ruinously affect the lives of millions of Americans, or b. cutting the military budget, which McCain will never do

People shouldn't be dependent on the government, but thats another argument. Cut pork belly spending, cut certain programs, make other aspects of government more efficient. There are tons of ways to decrease Government spending - without cutting the military budget.

By which you mean rich people have gotten much richer. Whereas the vast majority of Americans have experienced stagnation or loss.

A myth.

Except that the rich people which benefitted from Bush's tax cuts and which the tax increases would affect have been doing quite well financially and at the rest of the country's expense, which is why right now when everyone who isn't a millionaire is doing so badly is just the time for the government to use that money to do some actual good.

You say rich people like an insult. I find that troubling.

Which is why you spent two posts responding to me.

Do you know who I am? Its what I do.

 

[StorminNorman]

the round about ignorance of the GOP party, never ceses to amaze me

You are absolutely adorable.

 

[StorminNorman]

The economy's been strong since 2000? We're still blaming this on Clinton? The people only now are getting ****ed?

I disagree on all these counts.

The current economic crisis has nothing to do with the recession of 2000. This recession can be blamed on this government. The economy was, however, very strong for much of Bush's Presidency.

Published: June 7, 2005 in the NY Times:
In last Sunday's Times, David Cay Johnston reported that from 1980 to 2002, the latest year of available data, the share of total income earned by the top 0.1 percent of earners more than doubled, while the share earned by everyone else in the top 10 percent rose far less. The share of the bottom 90 percent declined.

President Bush did not create the income gap. But the unheralded effect of his tax policy is its unequal impact on the modestly well to do. By 2015, those making between $80,000 and $400,000 will pay as much as 13.9 percentage points more of their income in federal taxes than those making more than $400,000, assuming the tax cuts are made permanent. Below $80,000, most taxpayers will see their share of taxes rise slightly or stay the same.

I fail to see the relevance.

 

[fifthfiend]

Cut pork belly spending, cut certain programs, make other aspects of government more efficient.

Cite which spending, which programs, and which efficiencies, and where do they add up to our current enormous budget deficits, otherwise this is blather.

A myth.

If by "myth" you mean repeatedly verified fact including in the news article from which RDH just quoted.

You say rich people like an insult. I find that troubling.

It's touching that you have so much concern for the hurt feelings of rich people. Meanwhile my point that said rich people appropriate for themselves the vast majority of our economy's benefits leaving increasingly little for everybody who is not a millionaire still stands.

People shouldn't be dependent on the government, but thats another argument.

So if your house catches on fire and the Fire Department shows up, you send them home, right?

 

[Malice]

Why does it always come to the rich?
PEOPLE THEY ARE FREAKING RICH, and LIKE ALL RICH SMART PEOPLE...THEY FIND WAYS TO GET RICHER...

Why is this a bad thing?
Stop demonizing those that made a crap load of money

 

[fifthfiend]

PEOPLE THEY ARE FREAKING RICH, and LIKE ALL RICH SMART PEOPLE...THEY FIND WAYS TO GET RICHER...

Which they too often do at the direct expense of the vast majority of people who are not wealthy, which is why it is a bad thing. I mean, unless you enjoy being robbed? I, personally, do not.

 

[Malice]

Which they too often do at the direct expense of the vast majority of people who are not wealthy, which is why it is a bad thing. I mean, unless you enjoy being robbed? I, personally, do not.

How is the small man being robbed? Are you saying since they have alot more money, they need to pay a higher percentage of the taxes in the country?

 

[StorminNorman]

Cite which spending, which programs, and which efficiencies, and where do they add up to our current enormous budget deficits, otherwise this is blather.

# Allow states flexibility and control over their own education programs;
# Send the Superfund program to the states and allow local flexibility in deciding how to clean contaminated sites;
# Turn back law enforcement grant programs to the states;
# Devolve the Natural Resources Conservation Service to the states;
# Transfer the Institute of Museum Services and Library Sciences to the states;
# Send the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to the cities it affects; and
# Eliminate the practice of earmarking federal funds for local projects.
# Close down failed and outdated agencies and programs.
# Terminate the U.S. Geological Survey;
# Close down the Maritime Administration;
# Abolish the International Trade Commission;
# Close down the Economic Development Administration;
# End the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program;
# Close down the Rural Utilities Service; and
# Repeal P.L. 480's non-emergency international food programs.
# End low-priority programs that should never have been created in the first place.
# Terminate the Conservation Reserve Program;
# Disband the Commission of Fine Arts;
# End the Historic Whaling and Trading Partners Exchange Program;
# Eliminate the Office of Navajo and Hopi Relocation;
# Shut down AmeriCorps;
# Defund the National Endowment for the Humanities;
# Disband the Marine Mammal Commission;
# Close down the East-West Center;
# Shut down the Legal Services Corporation;
# End the protectionist programs of the International Trade Administration;
# Defund the State Justice Institute;
# Disband the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science;
# Eliminate the U.S. Institute of Peace;
# Defund the National Endowment for the Arts; and
# Eliminate most of the 945 federal advisory committees and commissions spread across 52 agencies.

Some ideas...

It's touching that you have so much concern for the hurt feelings of rich people. Meanwhile my point that said rich people appropriate for themselves the vast majority of our economy's benefits leaving increasingly little for everybody who is not a millionaire still stands.

But it is the rich and the millionaires that create most of the jobs in America. A prosperous rich person does far more good for far more people than a middle class person and certainly a poor person.

So if your house catches on fire and the Fire Department shows up, you send them home, right?

Fire Department isn't a federal program. The individual shouldn't depend on the National Government for their survival.

 

[Malice]

I have to disagree on the following:

# Terminate the U.S. Geological Survey;
# Disband the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science;
# Defund the National Endowment for the Arts

I thin the USGS is quite valuable.

 

[fifthfiend]

Re: McCain calls for Gas Tax Suspension

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by fifthfiend
Cite which spending, which programs, and which efficiencies, and where do they add up to our current enormous budget deficits, otherwise this is blather.

# Allow states flexibility and control over their own education programs;
# Send the Superfund program to the states and allow local flexibility in deciding how to clean contaminated sites;
# Turn back law enforcement grant programs to the states;
# Devolve the Natural Resources Conservation Service to the states;
# Transfer the Institute of Museum Services and Library Sciences to the states;
# Send the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation to the cities it affects;

Right off the bat you're not actually cutting anything with any of those as this still requires the same amount of money to be spent.

Fire Department isn't a federal program. The individual shouldn't depend on the National Government for their survival.

So if China invades you're telling the army no no, go ahead and let them bomb my home? Here I thought you were against cutting military budgets.

 

[StorminNorman]

I have to disagree on the following:

# Terminate the U.S. Geological Survey;
# Disband the National Commission on Libraries and Information Science;
# Defund the National Endowment for the Arts

I thin the USGS is quite valuable.

I am not necessarily advocating their destruction, only using it as an example.

 

[StorminNorman]

Right off the bat you're not actually cutting anything with any of those as this still requires the same amount of money to be spent.

Yes, because the money for those are no longer coming out of the FEDERAL budget. Thus that is money free to help pay out the FEDERAL deficit.

 

[fifthfiend]

Yes, because the money for those are no longer coming out of the FEDERAL budget. Thus that is money free to help pay out the FEDERAL deficit.

And that money subsequently comes out of the STATE budget, so STATE deficits increase by exactly amount the FEDERAL deficit decreases, unless the STATES raise STATE taxes exactly as much as FEDERAL taxes could have been increased to pay for the same programs.

Continuing down the list

# Shut down AmeriCorps;

So your idea of 'government pork' is college kids doing volunteer work? Seriously?

 

[StorminNorman]

And that money subsequently comes out of the STATE budget, so STATE deficits increase by exactly amount the FEDERAL deficit decreases, unless the STATES raise STATE taxes exactly as much as FEDERAL taxes could have been increased to pay for the same programs.

Continuing down the list

Except that the money is distributed by all 50 states. So, to pull a number out of my ass, lets say 50 Billion is what the Federal Government pays. If all things are equal - the states pay 1 Billion instead. State debt, however, is better than Federal Debt because Federal Debt is assumed by foreign countries and thus makes our indebted to other countries. While there is some diplomatic perks to this, when it is to the tune of several trillion dollars- the cons outweigh the pros.

So your idea of 'government pork' is college kids doing volunteer work? Seriously?

Again, giving examples without actually advocating. I am not saying all of these suggestions should happen. However, yes, I feel that such a program belongs in the private sector.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

But it is the rich and the millionaires that create most of the jobs in America. A prosperous rich person does far more good for far more people than a middle class person and certainly a poor person.

Moot point, they also create most of the jobs overseas, which is what's been happening. The idea of "trickle down economics" is sound if you assume America is some isolated system, but it isn't. People's desire to make money is not stiffled by taxes all that much, that is a myth the Republicans like to spout off so they can curry favor with their rich friends. The truth is almost any millionaire is going to create jobs irregardless of how much money we cut from his taxes; he/she can't help it, that's how he got rich in the first place. The fact of the matter is, in today's interglobal economy tax breaks for the lower income brackets is actually what promotes the enconomy. Poor people spend a larger precentage of their income than anyone in the top 2%, giving them more money means it's automatically coming back to our economy in the form of buying power. This idiotic belief that all rich people are naturally altruistic enough to "create jobs" and "stimulate our economy" is lunacy. Most rich people will only save or send that money elsewhere.