McCain Seemingly Backtracks on No New Taxes

[strandinthewind]

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

[ajmccarrell]

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

[strandinthewind]

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.

[strandinthewind]

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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?

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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.

[SortaSavageLike]

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

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.

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.

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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.

BINGO!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by ajmccarrell

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.

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.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by iamnotafraid

BINGO!

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.

[ajmccarrell]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

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.