McCain Seemingly Backtracks on No New Taxes
 

McCain backs off his no-new-tax pledge By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
42 minutes ago



Republican presidential candidate John McCain's signal that he may be open to a higher payroll tax for Social Security, despite previous vows not to raise taxes of any kind, is drawing sharp rebukes from conservatives.

McCain's shift has come in stages, catching some Republicans by surprise. Speaking with reporters on his campaign bus on July 9, he cited a need to shore up Social Security. "I cannot tell you what I would do, except to put everything on the table," he said.

He went a step farther Sunday on ABC's "This Week," in response to a question about payroll tax increases.

"There is nothing that's off the table. I have my positions, and I'll articulate them. But nothing's off the table," McCain said. "I don't want tax increases. But that doesn't mean that anything is off the table."

That comment drew a strong response from the Club for Growth, a Washington anti-tax group. McCain's comments, the group said in a letter to the Arizona senator, are "shocking because you have been adamant in your opposition to raising taxes under any circumstances."

During a town-hall meeting in Sparks, Nev., McCain insisted anew Tuesday that he would not raise taxes if elected.

He frequently has promised not to raise taxes.

At a July 7 town-hall meeting in Denver, he said voters faced a stark choice between him and Democrat Barack Obama.

"Sen. Obama will raise your taxes," McCain said. "I won't."

In a March 16 interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, McCain said he would cut taxes where possible, and not raise them.

"Do you mean none?" Hannity asked.

"None," McCain replied.

Both candidates have said Social Security's funding formula needs to be changed to ensure the program's long-term viability. Obama has called for imposing a new payroll tax on incomes above $250,000. Currently, only incomes up to $102,000 are subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax, which employers and employees split evenly.

When Obama announced his plan June 13, McCain's top economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, told reporters that as president McCain would not consider a payroll tax increase "under any imaginable circumstance."

McCain has made no specific proposals for Social Security, refusing to rule in or out anything to strengthen the benefit program for retirees and the disabled. Both candidates have said that, if elected, they would try to work out details with Republican and Democratic lawmakers.

Asked for an explanation of McCain's latest comments, campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds said the Arizona senator "has a clear and demonstrated record of opposing tax increases. John McCain is going to cut taxes" and improve government discipline, he said.

Promises never to raise taxes have bedeviled past Republican officeholders. Before being elected president in 1988, George H.W. Bush said, "Read my lips, no new taxes." But facing severe budget problems, he reneged on the promise. Some conservative groups never forgave him.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/...r/mccain_taxes

He may lose my vote if this is actually true. I'll probably abstain.

From what I see now -- it is true. So, I agree with you that this will be the nail in the coffin for him amongst the so called conservative base.

Note - that the SS payroll tax stops at like $95,000 is assinine. If they would get rid of that limit, SS could be funded.

Agreed. I also think it should be means tested. I mean, if you make more than $50,000 at retirement age, do you really need it? I just think the timing would be REALLY bad for a payroll tax hike. Also, there should be some sort of consideration for businesses, as they would have to cough up half of the extra cash needed to fund the increase. It would mean lower wages for everyone. It should be phased in slowly, so it doesn't cripple our economy if it is to be done.

I'll wait and see what he says about it. Sometimes on campaigns, people just say stupid stuff out of exhaustion. I mean, Obama and the 57 states, hello! I know he knows there aren't 57 states. Both of these guys are very tired and McCain may have gotten confused, like he seems to lately. I'll wait a few days before I make a final judgement. I listened to the sound-bite and it sounds like he may have been saying something for effect without realizing the consequences of the statement. I mean, the guy has a very long track record of opposing taxes, so one comment may be meaningless, unless he ACTUALLY PLANS on raising the tax.

Well, it is not set up that way. Congress would have to re write the act, which I think they will never do.

But I agree with you, though I'd raise it to $100,000.

Before raising it, you should always make sure that we're not in a downturn. Doing it right now would kill any hope of recovery we may have.

I was talking about you cap of benefits not going to those making $50,000 or over. I'd raise that cap tp $100,000 for the retirees.

But, in the end, taxes will have to be raised to pay for the folly pf the Bush Administration and the trillions of other dollars it will cost us to get out of the current mortgage crisis, which just about every economist suggests in in its infancy.

I do think, however, that a switch to the fair tax right now would alleviate the issue (the rich would atually pay more and the poor less mind you) and greatly bolster the economy.

We're going to have to raise taxes if we ever end up in a war on the Iraq-Pakistan border.

The mortgage crisis has everything to do with lenders and borrowers. The Bush administrations has little to nothing to do with it. The whole problem could be alleviated if we'd leave it alone and let prices fall back to normal levels. Figures suggest that average median income is $47,000 and the average home price is over $386K. If we stopped messing with it, raised interest rates back normal levels and let the market work, we'd have homes that normal people can afford again and cheaper imports because our higher interest rates would attract investors. The dollar would rise and gas prices would go down. What the Fed is doing is pure suicide that will cause much worse problems in the long run. The basic problem is that the shady lenders didn't let the market work. To put it in economic terms, they shifted the supply curve rightward to intersect with the indifference curves of consumers that had no business buying in the first place. The shady dealings were much more widespread than reported and people were buying too much house. All bailing the system out does is keep prices artificially high. If mortgages are harder to obtain, prices will drop and more regular people could afford to buy again.

The simple solution that would benefit everyone except for those who bit off more than they could afford, would be to do nothing. No bailouts. Nothing. It would seem draconian and bring me a lot of bad press if I were the one pulling the trigger and the whole country would call for my ouster, but the problem would be fixed in a couple of years, instead of dragging on and dragging the rest of the economy down. BTW I do have degrees in the subject. I went to SUNY for my BS in Management and Economics and Texas A & M for my MBA. No Liberty University or Bob Jones for me! Those places suck.

I agree on the fair tax! The "progressive" tax structure isn't as efficient. Raising taxes would compound the problem.

BINGO! :thumbsup:

Well, I am unsure if a market based correction is necessary in that the complete misery it would cause (thousands of people likely would starve and die - colleges would empty -- etc. ) likely would outweigh the outcome, which IMO would take a decade or more. I also think the Bush administration will bail the banks out because it is way cheaper than living up to the FDIC guarantees.

Did you take any Katrina aid? Just curious. If you did, then you really are no different than the people taking the mortgage aid in that you could have chosen not to live in a flood plane/hurricane zone and/or you could have bought more insurance. Govt. aid to help the miserable is all the same to me and it is needed in some circumstances.

Note - I readily agree that greed on many levels caused the mortgage crisis. I even think the Bush admin. has known about it since like 2002 (I certainly did) but chose to do nothing about it because without the housing boom, the US economy would have kept on tanking. I said that then and I say it now.

I agree with the last paragraph. I think the housing boom only happened BECAUSE of the conditions that brought on the housing crisis. I mean, in some areas, you had 300% appreciation in 10 years?! Unheard of without some severe shortage, which wasn't the case. I remember people talking about the housing bubble bursting in 2000! It's been long coming.

As far as aid goes, I don't even take unemployment.

N0 one would starve and die, if any, then very few. The people who were foreclosed on wouldn't suddenly become unemployed because they were foreclosed on. They would still work, but end up in rentals and have to curb their spending in iPods, video games and the like. The people wouldn't be in much worse financial shape than they are in already. They'd probably be slightly better off as far as cash on hand, since they'd be renting, but they'd be unable to obtain credit for about 7 years if they filed bankruptcy right away. Plus, as prices fell, you'd have new buyers in lower income brackets buying the houses that they previously couldn't afford, so the impact on the industry would be crippling, but not the far reaching destruction you are mentioning. As far as colleges go, that might not be a bad thing. College is way too expensive. If they emptied, they'd have to bring down their prices and cut useless crap out, like ice skating. A friend of mine actually majored in ice skating. Pathetic!

strandinthewind, you've got a good memory. I think we had posted about FEMA?

Aid after a hurricane, yes we did accept. It came in the form of water, ice and $$$ to help with damage to our farm. Did it help, yes it did. Is everything back to normal, no. I can look outside even after all this time and still see damage. Our concrete and steel silos broken beyond repair and way too expensive to rebuild. I always notice them during the sunset. A daily reminder of the storms.

Are you really compairing natural disasters to the mortgage crisis?

It sort of amazes me that you have these views, which are unsupported. But, you are 26 and I think that gets you some slack. If no one has any money to buy things - then how are the manufacturers and reatilers going to stay in business? True Ch. 7 is an alternative if you have no job, but you will lose you house if you cannot continue to pay for it. Then, who is going to rent an unemployed bankrupt person an apartment? I tell you what, just make a few calls to your local rental companies and tell them you have just emerged from a Ch. 7, you are unemployed, and you have a foreclosure on your record -- see what they will cahrge to rent to you if they will at all. Moreover, with millions unemployed, where do you expect people to find a job? Finally, I suggest that if you cannot find a job or a place to live, your chances of strarving and dying escalate :shrug: But, you are for the survival of the fit anyway, so it really should not bother you, though you were there once yourself :shrug:

As for majors in college, if your friend was good enough, he'd make a great living, even if he just toured with the shows as an extra :shrug: But, I think all colleges should run their curriculums past you as the decider of what is appropriate :rolleyes:

No, I am comparing your prior statement and the prior statements of the one you high fived with the "BINGO" with your willingness to accept Federal aid when it suited you. I took your statement then and your provious statments to mean that you supported individual responsibility as opposed to govt. handouts. So, the question from that vantage point becomes could you not have bought more insurance? Could you not have saved more money instead of spending on something silly (surely you did that once) I do not hold you to such a ridiculous standard, but you and ajmccarrell set that standard earlier. I mean you live in a hurricane zone -- surely you knew one was eventually going to come and you had at least four days warning with Katrina. I lived in S.W. Louisiana and New Orleans for about 25 years and have been through many a hurricane -- so, I know more than most about this topic.

Interestingly, ajmccarrell likely thinks you spent your Fed. benefits on hookers, hooch, and designer duds as he lumped all people who got aid into one general category earlier. He implied it was the blacks only, but and in fairness, he was not specific. I, however, do not think that. I think the vast majority of the people who took the cards spent it wisely -- you seemingly fit into this category and I know many more. But, this notion apparently is foreign to him.

As an aside, if I had lost my house, money, livelihood, etc. and was living on a cot in the Astrodome, I'd need a drink or two myself and fukc anyone who judged me for that :shrug: If you are a drinking man, did you not at least once get ****tefaced after the storm? I sure as hell did.

In the end and back to the topic at hand -- I agree with you that the mortgage companies and were greedy and they should suffer. But, if we allow all the banks to fail because people start making runs on banks (it already happened in Calif. ) -- how would that benefit us as a nation. True, the banks would be punished and there is some comfort in that ability to wag the finger and say "I told you so." But, is that comfort worth the effect of bank failures on the economy? To me that is cutting off our nose to spite our face :shrug: To me, the more pragmatic and wildly cheaper business decision is to bail out the banks and pass laws trying to ensure this will never happen again. W could have passed these laws in his first term, but he did not. I submit he did not because he along with everyone else knew that the collapse of Enron, MCI, the computer industries ( .com stock anyone) at the end of the Clinton era, etc. left the economy crippled (note - I blame Clinton for this because the Dept. of Justice essentially turned a blind eye to it) . Though the US still had a huge surplus mostly thanks to Clinton and his "raised taxes," the only continuing game in town so to speak was the mortgage industry, which included the construction industry et al. The Bush Administration could not stifle that and it is costing us now.

Interstingly, if we allowed the banks to fail and the markets to correct themselves, what do you think would happen? Would we enter into another Great Depression?

Note - I am not blaming or judging you for taking the Katrina related aid. I think you were smart for taking it. Moreover, I wish you luck with the farm. I am just noting that many people including myself are quick to judge others because of perceived stereotypes when not all people fit in those stereotypes.

As for your silos -- I know its a long shot, but is there any govt. aid for that? If not, is there anyway the local community can help you rebuild them. I say this because I know in many communities in NOLA and the area, neighborhood people got together and helped clear and redo each others' hosues. A silo seemingly is a far larger task though. Good luck with that!

You said, "Interestingly, ajmccarrell likely thinks you spent your Fed. benefits on hookers, hooch, and designer duds as he lumped all people who got aid into one general category earlier. He implied it was the blacks only, but and in fairness, he was not specific. I, however, do not think that. " What the hell is your problem? You are grossly mischaracterizing what I said you jerk. Knock it off! I never said it was blacks only either. You sir, are a liar!

I said you implied it. Please read my statements that you just quoted. If you did not implhy it, your statements read that way. Surely you realized that.

Note - if I am in error, I apologize. But, I do not think I am as the vast majority of the evacuee's were black and they are whom you specifically referenced. You laid the card, don't be scared to play it :shrug:

Twist and spin, mischaracterize and assume. You have some pretty severe problems. I don't mind debating issues. i like to argue, but i will not have a conversation with someone who outright lies and stretches the truth.

^^^

Here's what you said:

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showth...=36253&page=18

Clearly, you were talking about black people and you referred to them as "human debris." Would you like to backtrack from that now?

I wasn't specifically referring to black people. I was referring to people left behind waiting for their welfare checks that were committing crimes. I never defined people by race. It is just another typical pathetic response from a stereotypical liberal to label anyone who disagrees as a racist to shut down debate because they can't win. PATHETIC! You also admitted abuses of the funds, does that mean that you said black people squandered the money?! I wouldn't stoop low enough to accuse you of something like that. This gutter level of debate disgusts me. Pathetic...

I readily admit some black people squandered that money - there is evidence to prove that. I do not think all did though and certainly white people and people of other races did as well. The difference is I, unlike you and your "human debris" statement, did not lump all evacuees together, compare the New Orleans situation with the, according to you, mostly white recent floods, to wit (emphasis supplied) :

That is white people is distress as opposed to green people? No, it is white people in distress as opposed to the 95% black population in NOLA in distress after Katrina. If not, then what were you making the racism comparison to?

In any event, you clearly were talking about black people with the human debris comment. That you recant now is unsurprising though as you have yet to win any argument in this or the other two threads. And, when called on your incorrect assertions, you attack the person calling you out.

I was pointing out bias in the media, not making a broad assumption about black people. Are you really that stupid?! Maybe so! There is no winning an argument with you because you don't want to be confused with facts. You just grasp at any excuse to hold on to your hatred of conservatives to the point of lying.

^^^

So, the "human debris" comment was meant as an editorial on the bias in the media?

The two comments might have been part of the same overall subject of Katrina, but not about race specifically. My comment on human desbris was not related to my comments on the media. Is your reading comprehension really that bad?! I said that most of the people left behind during Katrina were human debris. I also said that the media covered Katrina more than similar disasters because the inhabitants of the damaged areas were largely black. A + B does not = D. Have you ever a formal logic course? I can tell it's been a while if you had.

There's an old joke that God is going to destroy the world, so the papers report, "God destroys world: women and minorities hardest hit." The joke is that the media fixates on minorities. I was making the same point here. There were floods in the midwest this summer far beyond the scope of those that hit Katrina and these also had the potential to disrupt our food supply. The media was still covering Katrina a year later and Oprah was still doing specials on it. How about the floods? The media stopped covering it about a week later and Oprah never addressed it. My point is that the media is racist.

Why bother, you're just going to lie about it anyway. You are a testament to our rotten school system if you legitimately think that my media comments were related to my human debris comments. I can't imagine someone that lacking in basic reading skills. But then again, you do vote democratic!

The situation in Minnesota was not nearly as dramatic as the tens of thousands of, to use your words, "human debris" left in NOLA after Katrina due to the Feds takijng too long to send in the needed help to get them out. That is why NOLA got so much television coverage as oppsed to Minnesota, which though perhaps in a larger area geographically, was a comparatively far less severe disaster. I may be mistaken, but I do not think tens of thousands had to be evacuated from Minnesota. The horrible events were not really comparable in severity or cost (monetary and human lives and suffering) .

Minnesota too, but i was just now referring to the Midwest floods up and down the Mississippi. The fact that I said Midwest and you didn't immediately know what I meant is a pretty good indicator that I'm right. I just heard a report on the radio that the US is asking the UN to intervene and send food to those along the Mississippi. It must be bad, but we're not hearing about it daily, weekly. Maybe monthly at this point.

You specifically mentioned Minnesota earlier -- I was commenting on that :shrug:

I agree the situation is bad all along the Mississippi River. However, the exigency of removing like 50,000 staving people is not there and W is not saying the heck of a job Brownie comment. I suggest that is why the media is not covering it. Interestingly, a month or so after Katrina, the media front pages died down considerably. It was the investigations and Brown's insanly irresponsible conduct that put it back on the front page for awhile - though there were other stories as well like the corruption of the NOPD for starters. To be fair, several exposes came out later, but I am talking about the front page stuff.

In the end, there is just no front page sensational story there like there was in NOLA for the few weeks after the storm.

On edit - this is just my opinion

Actually, you are correct that you initially never defined people by race, which I gave you credit for above :shrug:

Again, I said you implied it. I think my statement is accurate. Here is what you said:

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showth...=36253&page=17

Your statement "These people stayed poor because we made it easy to be poor and encouraged them to stay on welfare because human nature always follows the path of least resistance" in relation to the Affirmative Action statement and the subsequent racism statements clearly implies (if not states) that you were talking about black people as the human debris.

Otherwise, why would you bring up that set of people (the almost exclusively black population left behind in NOLA) in the context of comparing the racist effects of Affirmative Action against black people and how that affected the willingness of "these" people to help themselves in the context of Katrina?