If McCain is smart he will ask

[calmus]

He's O.K.  Just O.K.  For yet another election we will be given a slate of mediocre candidates on both sides.  Frustrating.   

 

[Decker]

I say he's better than Bush in 2000 because his education is almost on par with Bush, he has a better military record, he's more experienced, and he's smarter.  (But I still think he’s just an average candidate.)  He's better than Obama, because Obama is a liberal who admittedly offers nothing new; just big government and socialism with different packaging. 

I support candidates who have the mindset that the money belongs to the people and government should always be trying to help the people keep more of their own money.  Obama is just the opposite:  take from the haves, give to the have nots, use the government to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity, even if that means the brazen redistribution of wealth. 

I see.  So even if his policies--like his borrow and spend policy--are wrong-headed, you will support him b/c he will cut taxes.  Those tax cuts will be a short term gain for you.  The long term loss of your share of the national debt does not play a role in your calculus it seems.

I think McCain's Borrow and spend/cut taxes at all costs approach to fiscal sanity is a national nightmare.  It is not conservative.

I think McCain's advocacy of CIA torture is anti-american b/c torture does not issue from our traditions.  It is not a conservative opinion.

I think McCain's constant cheerleading for the failed occupation of Iraq and his bellicose attitude towards Iran are counterproductive to real diplomacy.  That's not conservative.

Where did Obama admit that he offers "nothing new"...I thought his entire campaign was about 'change'?

[BayGBM]

It has been long established that McCain is not smart.  He graduated near the very bottom of his class and has proven to be one of the dimmer bulbs in the Senate.

[calmus]

It has been long established that McCain is not smart.  He graduated near the very bottom of his class and has proven to be one of the dimmer bulbs in the Senate.

Yes, but old BB believes that if he posts with conviction he can change reality.

[Colossus_500]

This sums it all up for me with regard to our choices for president:

[Decker]

It has been long established that McCain is not smart.  He graduated near the very bottom of his class and has proven to be one of the dimmer bulbs in the Senate.

He's a bad student but he's not a dumb man. 

He's dishonest and that's enough for me.

He constantly beats the drum that tax cuts raise tax revenues.

Even Pres. Bush's own economists deny that supplyside fairy tale.

[w8tlftr]

He's a bad student but he's not a dumb man. 

He's dishonest and that's enough for me.

He constantly beats the drum that tax cuts raise tax revenues.

Even Pres. Bush's own economists deny that supplyside fairy tale.

Come on, Decker. At least be fair about it.

He said that tax cuts WITH spending cuts raise tax revenues.

That is why he claims he was originally against the Bush tax cuts - they came with zero cuts in government spending.

[Decker]

Come on, Decker. At least be fair about it.

He said that tax cuts WITH spending cuts raise tax revenues.

That is why he claims he was originally against the Bush tax cuts - they came with zero cuts in government spending.

Sen. McCain: No. None. None. Tax cuts, starting with Kennedy, as we all know, increase revenues. So what’s the argument for increasing taxes? If you get the opposite effect out of tax cuts?
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTMxOWRkYjgyNDhjOTU5ZTY2OWU2ZTg2ZmUxMzQ1NjQ=&w=MQ==

That's from March 5 of this year.

Apparently McCain forgot about the spending cuts.  And even with spending cuts, tax cuts are a loser for federal revenue.  We carry around a 9 trillion dollar debt that still has to be paid for.

He's being facile to the point of blatant dishonesty.

[Decker]

...He said that tax cuts WITH spending cuts raise tax revenues.

....

THE FACTS:

Spending was not why McCain said he opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

In 2001, McCain said the $1.35 trillion tax cut benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," McCain said then.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080131/D8UH1CF80.html

[w8tlftr]

THE FACTS:

Spending was not why McCain said he opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

In 2001, McCain said the $1.35 trillion tax cut benefited the wealthy at the expense of the middle class.

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief," McCain said then.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080131/D8UH1CF80.html

Okay... so what did he mean by this?

"The tax cut is not appropriate until we find out the cost of the war and the cost of reconstruction," McCain said then.

No tax cuts until we find out what the bill is going to be?

[Decker]

Okay... so what did he mean by this?

"The tax cut is not appropriate until we find out the cost of the war and the cost of reconstruction," McCain said then.

No tax cuts until we find out what the bill is going to be?

Great.  Dualing McCains.

I don't see any call to cut spending in that sentence.  But in all fairness, I have seen him make comments about restraining spending.  However, he's playing to the nutbase of the republican party with supplyside bromides and I hope it sinks him.

Sen. John McCain said, "I've never voted for a tax increase in 24 years," .... "Never, ever, not under any president including President Reagan, and I will never vote for a tax increase, nor support a tax increase."

And Mr. McCain proclaimed himself a believer in the notion that cutting taxes increases revenue for the government by spurring economic growth. “Don’t listen to this siren song about cutting taxes,” Mr. McCain told supporters gathered here under a tent in a driving rain. “Every time in history we have raised taxes it has cut revenues. And is there anybody here that needs to have their taxes increased?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/18/us/politics/18campaign.html?_r=2&ref=politics&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[Dos Equis]

I see.  So even if his policies--like his borrow and spend policy--are wrong-headed, you will support him b/c he will cut taxes.  Those tax cuts will be a short term gain for you.  The long term loss of your share of the national debt does not play a role in your calculus it seems.

I think McCain's Borrow and spend/cut taxes at all costs approach to fiscal sanity is a national nightmare.  It is not conservative.

I think McCain's advocacy of CIA torture is anti-american b/c torture does not issue from our traditions.  It is not a conservative opinion.

I think McCain's constant cheerleading for the failed occupation of Iraq and his bellicose attitude towards Iran are counterproductive to real diplomacy.  That's not conservative.

Where did Obama admit that he offers "nothing new"...I thought his entire campaign was about 'change'?

No, it's not as simple as supporting someone who will cut taxes.  It's about supporting someone with the mindset that it's not the government's money.  It's about opposing someone who is a quasi socialist and believes in the redistribution of wealth.

Regarding Obama offering nothing new, Colossus posted this in another thread:

"I'm different than any of the politicians you've heard from in Washington.  Of course, I propose no different solutions than what any of my other constituents.  But what I can promise you is that I can present those same solutions to you in a brand new package, never seen before."  -- Barack Obama

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=207228.0

[Dos Equis]

This sums it all up for me with regard to our choices for president:

lol.  A shame isn't it? 

[Decker]

No, it's not as simple as supporting someone who will cut taxes.  It's about supporting someone with the mindset that it's not the government's money.  It's about opposing someone who is a quasi socialist and believes in the redistribution of wealth.

Regarding Obama offering nothing new, Colossus posted this in another thread:

"I'm different than any of the politicians you've heard from in Washington.  Of course, I propose no different solutions than what any of my other constituents.  But what I can promise you is that I can present those same solutions to you in a brand new package, never seen before."  -- Barack Obama

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=207228.0

But Beach Bum, it is the government's money--tax dollars.

All governments redistribute tax dollars.  It just usually goes to the destitute or elites.

As for Obama, who truly creates anything?  Are we not all arrangers?

[shootfighter1]

I actually think Hillary is the smartest of the bunch.  If she didn't also favor a quasi-socialist agenda, I'd consider voting for her.  She isn't easy to like, but I think she is intelligent, assertive and would be effective as a leader.

McCain has talked about cutting spending along with tax cuts, but I agree, I'd like to hear a lot more of that from him.
We cannot tolerate forced redistribution of wealth.  It does nothing to change work ethic, broken families and poor values and choices.

[Colossus_500]

lol.  A shame isn't it? 

Pitiful is more like it.       The irony in all of this is that we'll likely see a record attendance in voting this year.  Voters (new and old) are exited about a pitiful selection to choose from.   

[24KT]

I actually think Hillary is the smartest of the bunch.  If she didn't also favor a quasi-socialist agenda, I'd consider voting for her.  She isn't easy to like, but I think she is intelligent, assertive and would be effective as a leader.

McCain has talked about cutting spending along with tax cuts, but I agree, I'd like to hear a lot more of that from him.
We cannot tolerate forced redistribution of wealth.  It does nothing to change work ethic, broken families and poor values and choices.

I think hilary could certainly get the job done, ...but she is someone I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw her.
Axeing a perfectly good solution, in favour of elite backers is something I could see her doing in a heartbeat.

She's a woman with the ability to sodomize you to such an extent, you wouldn't see it until her penis was piercing the top of your skull IMO.

See Nordic, ...you're not the only one who can post sodomy analogies.    (Didn't want you to stand out)

[Dos Equis]

But Beach Bum, it is the government's money--tax dollars.

All governments redistribute tax dollars.  It just usually goes to the destitute or elites.

As for Obama, who truly creates anything?  Are we not all arrangers?

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement.  It's not the government's money.  It's our money.  That's the difference in mindset I'm talking about.  

Obama wants to "roll back" tax cuts (i.e., raise taxes) so he can pay for things like socialized healthcare.  That kind of approach is just wrongheaded.  Both he and the people in control of the purse strings should be finding ways to reduce spending, reduce the amount of our money they take from us, and get out of our way.    

[Dos Equis]

Pitiful is more like it.       The irony in all of this is that we'll likely see a record attendance in voting this year.  Voters (new and old) are exited about a pitiful selection to choose from.   

I'm certainly not excited.   

[Decker]

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement.  It's not the government's money.  It's our money.  That's the difference in mindset I'm talking about.  

Obama wants to "roll back" tax cuts (i.e., raise taxes) so he can pay for things like socialized healthcare.  That kind of approach is just wrongheaded.  Both he and the people in control of the purse strings should be finding ways to reduce spending, reduce the amount of our money they take from us, and get out of our way.    

We are the government via our elected officials.  The tax money is always 'ours'.  You want to keep more of your money despite the facts we are at war and in debt.  I understand that.  I disagree but I understand.

Obama wants national healthcare with existing insurance plans.  That's a big mistake in my opinion.

[24KT]

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement.  It's not the government's money.  It's our money.  That's the difference in mindset I'm talking about.  

Obama wants to "roll back" tax cuts (i.e., raise taxes) so he can pay for things like socialized healthcare.  That kind of approach is just wrongheaded.  Both he and the people in control of the purse strings should be finding ways to reduce spending, reduce the amount of our money they take from us, and get out of our way.    

I thought Obama's approach was to divert the funds spent on the war towards improving things at home.
Instead of investing a billion to kill Iraqi's, ...take the money and use it to help Americans.

Certainly is a much healthier approach if you ask me.

[Dos Equis]

We are the government via our elected officials.  The tax money is always 'ours'.  You want to keep more of your money despite the facts we are at war and in debt.  I understand that.  I disagree but I understand.

Obama wants national healthcare with existing insurance plans.  That's a big mistake in my opinion.

I not only want to keep more of my own money, I want you to keep more of yours.  I want every taxpayer, regardless of income, to have as little government intrusion into their pockets as possible. 

[Dos Equis]

I thought Obama's approach was to divert the funds spent on the war towards improving things at home.
Instead of investing a billion to kill Iraqi's, ...take the money and use it to help Americans.

Certainly is a much healthier approach if you ask me.

Where did he say this?  I don’t see this as a healthy approach.  He shouldn't be trying to find more ways to spend more money using the government to try and "level the playing field."  He should be talking about reducing the amount of money we spend.  We already spend enough.  We need things like our enforcement branches in the private sector and to help root out discrimination, but there is already enough money being funneled "to help Americans." 

[24KT]

Where did he say this?  I don’t see this as a healthy approach. 

You don't see it as a far healthier approach to stop killng others, and start helping yourselves? 

He shouldn't be trying to find more ways to spend more money using the government to try and "level the playing field."  He should be talking about reducing the amount of money we spend.  We already spend enough.  We need things like our enforcement branches in the private sector and to help root out discrimination, but there is already enough money being funneled "to help Americans." 

The problem is the money is being funneled right out of the US treasury and into the hands of the elite.

[Dos Equis]

You don't see it as a far healthier approach to stop killng others, and start helping yourselves? 


The problem is the money is being funneled right out of the US treasury and into the hands of the elite.

No, it isn't far healthier to shuffle money we don't really have anyway from one campaign to another.   

How exactly are taxpayer funds being funneled right into the hands of the elite?