View Full Version : More Lies: McCain changes story on tax cut stance
McCain changes story on tax cut stance
WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain says he opposed President Bush's tax cuts because they didn't come with spending cuts. That is not what he said at the time.
In a presidential debate on Wednesday, McCain said he voted against the Bush tax cuts because he wanted to rein in spending.
"I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint," the Arizona senator said.
The explanation fits with his history of railing against wasteful federal spending. But it does not fit with McCain's comments when he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
In 2001, McCain said the tax cuts favored the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In 2003, he said there should be no tax cuts until the Iraq war costs were known.
His aversion to the Bush tax cuts is just another reason McCain gives heartburn to many in the conservative GOP base. Besides taxes, there is also his more forgiving attitude toward illegal immigration, his effort to limit money in politics and his long-running feuds with leaders of the Christian right.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_fact_check;_ylt=AvUtgTtK7OtEU7QV_VMCH8oEtbA F)
This should be a wake up call to those in favor of McCain
manu1959
01-31-2008, 03:54 PM
McCain changes story on tax cut stance
WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain says he opposed President Bush's tax cuts because they didn't come with spending cuts. That is not what he said at the time.
In a presidential debate on Wednesday, McCain said he voted against the Bush tax cuts because he wanted to rein in spending.
"I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint," the Arizona senator said.
The explanation fits with his history of railing against wasteful federal spending. But it does not fit with McCain's comments when he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
In 2001, McCain said the tax cuts favored the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In 2003, he said there should be no tax cuts until the Iraq war costs were known.
His aversion to the Bush tax cuts is just another reason McCain gives heartburn to many in the conservative GOP base. Besides taxes, there is also his more forgiving attitude toward illegal immigration, his effort to limit money in politics and his long-running feuds with leaders of the Christian right.
link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080131/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_fact_check;_ylt=AvUtgTtK7OtEU7QV_VMCH8oEtbA F)
This should be a wake up call to those in favor of McCain
do you disagree with the following posistions:
should tax cuts favour one particular group...
should one impliment tax cuts when one has not analyzed the cost a future big expenditure....
should one implement tax cuts and not curtail spending....
manu1959;194205]do you disagree with the following posistions:
should tax cuts favour one particular group...
Yes, when one particular is disfavored or disproportionate
should one impliment tax cuts when one has not analyzed the cost a future big expenditure....
absolutely, tax cuts help the economy... think back to the big tax cuts of the early part of the last century, instead of hindering the government, revenues rose. if the "future" big expenditure becomes unaffordable, drop it.
should one implement tax cuts and not curtail spending....
this is not a simple yes or no answer. though it would in most cases be wise absolutely.
manu1959
01-31-2008, 04:06 PM
Yes, when one particular is disfavored or disproportionate
absolutely, tax cuts help the economy... think back to the big tax cuts of the early part of the last century, instead of hindering the government, revenues rose. if the "future" big expenditure becomes unaffordable, drop it.
this is not a simple yes or no answer. though it would in most cases be wise absolutely.
so tax cuts should result in treating all citizens equally...
the key to my question was the word analyze.....you seem to favour tax cuts without anlalyzing futre costs....i would think that is not the case
so you agree that if you pay (taxes) is going to decrease you should cut spending....or at leats analyze it and make a prudent financial decission before you choose to go deeper into debt....
so tax cuts should result in treating all citizens equally...
the key to my question was the word analyze.....you seem to favour tax cuts without anlalyzing futre costs....i would think that is not the case
so you agree that if you pay (taxes) is going to decrease you should cut spending....or at leats analyze it and make a prudent financial decission before you choose to go deeper into debt....
are you saying Bush did not analyze future costs/potential costs? are you saying that if Bush did not cut taxes, Iraq/afgan/911 would have been within budget?
manu1959
01-31-2008, 04:44 PM
are you saying Bush did not analyze future costs/potential costs? are you saying that if Bush did not cut taxes, Iraq/afgan/911 would have been within budget?
no i asked you if you would do those things...
if you would create a tax cut that treated your citizens fairly across the board....
if you would make sure (analyze) the tax cuts were a prudent financial move given that we were about to wage a trillion dollar war...
if you would cut spending if you cut taxes.....
these are simple yes or no questions.....
no i asked you if you would do those things...
if you would create a tax cut that treated your citizens fairly across the board....
if you would make sure (analyze) the tax cuts were a prudent financial move given that we were about to wage a trillion dollar war...
if you would cut spending if you cut taxes.....
these are simple yes or no questions.....
yes on analyze
tax cut would depend if the cut brought one group more in line with another, e.g., one group was unfairly taxed before
spending should always be be looked at, however, it is not necessarily a simple yes or no "if" the tax cut actually increased revenue
manu1959
01-31-2008, 05:04 PM
yes on analyze
tax cut would depend if the cut brought one group more in line with another, e.g., one group was unfairly taxed before
spending should always be be looked at, however, it is not necessarily a simple yes or no "if" the tax cut actually increased revenue
so you i and maccain all believe that an analysis should take place before taxes are cut....
do you believe one group should have a better tax rate than the other all should be the same.....
did bushes tax cut and resulting revenue stream cover the spending....
so you i and maccain all believe that an analysis should take place before taxes are cut....
do you believe one group should have a better tax rate than the other all should be the same.....
did bushes tax cut and resulting revenue stream cover the spending....
counselor, i object to this leading examination....:laugh2:
don't forget Romney believes that too...
no, one group should not have a "better" tax rate
china thinks it covered spending.... no, this is why so many are upset with Bush right now. with that said, i do not know this:
if no tax cut, spending would have been covered -- for better or worse
do you know the answer? i am not sure anyone can answer that because estimating a hypothetical revenue stream is impossible, might be "good guesses" but thats it. i am unwilling to say that if there were no tax cuts, that the budget would be in any better shape. i don't think anyone can truly say that.
Pale Rider
01-31-2008, 06:13 PM
do you disagree with the following posistions:
should tax cuts favour one particular group...
should one impliment tax cuts when one has not analyzed the cost a future big expenditure....
should one implement tax cuts and not curtail spending....
Do you disagree it is unethical to lie?
manu1959
01-31-2008, 07:21 PM
counselor, i object to this leading examination....:laugh2:
don't forget Romney believes that too...
no, one group should not have a "better" tax rate
china thinks it covered spending.... no, this is why so many are upset with Bush right now. with that said, i do not know this:
if no tax cut, spending would have been covered -- for better or worse
do you know the answer? i am not sure anyone can answer that because estimating a hypothetical revenue stream is impossible, might be "good guesses" but thats it. i am unwilling to say that if there were no tax cuts, that the budget would be in any better shape. i don't think anyone can truly say that.
you caught me.....:laugh2:.....of course you should make an analysis....of course taxes should be fair and of course you should not spend more than you have......i am pretty sure that is all mccain was trying to say....and what the question that was asked of him in the three instances was….....it is how you go about executing the details and hindsite is 20/20....
we all know romney is the only one with any financial sense to him…..except for mccains loathing of pork…...not sure he would have made different choices than bush.....or mccain for that matter....
manu1959
01-31-2008, 07:23 PM
Do you disagree it is unethical to lie?
post the question mccain was asked and his entire answer to the question and i will answer your question....
btw romney is pro life now ....was his previous posistion a lie.....and thus he too would be unethical?.....
you caught me.....:laugh2:.....of course you should make an analysis....of course taxes should be fair and of course you should not spend more than you have......i am pretty sure that is all mccain was trying to say....and what the question that was asked of him in the three instances was….....it is how you go about executing the details and hindsite is 20/20....
we all know romney is the only one with any financial sense to him…..except for mccains loathing of pork…...not sure he would have made different choices than bush.....or mccain for that matter....
haha, gotcha :cool:
post the question mccain was asked and his entire answer to the question and i will answer your question....
btw romney is pro life now ....was his previous posistion a lie.....and thus he too would be unethical?.....
changing a position is not lying. this is where i see the strongest argument for mccain's truthiness --
"I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint," the Arizona senator said.
The explanation fits with his history of railing against wasteful federal spending. But it does not fit with McCain's comments when he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.
In 2001, McCain said the tax cuts favored the wealthy at the expense of the middle class
I believe mccain was asked about his prior arguments against tax cuts, both the iraq war (which admittedly one can argue that "knowing the cost" is similar to "reigning in spending) and his most famous anti bush tax cut statement I reposted above. Whether a tax favors a group or not has nothing to do with sprending restraints. Further, there was no proof that Bush's tax cuts hurt the middle class. You're probably upper middle, were you hurt by Bush's tax cuts? My folks are upper middle too and they weren't hurt. Not sure I know any "middle" class people who were hurt by Bush's tax cuts.
Pale Rider
01-31-2008, 10:42 PM
post the question mccain was asked and his entire answer to the question and i will answer your question....
btw romney is pro life now ....was his previous posistion a lie.....and thus he too would be unethical?.....
Hmmm... gotta link? I wasn't aware that a Mormon would ever endorse abortion... :dunno:
Surely we agree lying is unethical.
In any case, I'd say there's a big difference between changing ones position and lying about it... wouldn't you?
manu1959
01-31-2008, 10:49 PM
Hmmm... gotta link? I wasn't aware that a Mormon would ever endorse abortion... :dunno:
In any case, I'd say there's a big difference between changing ones position and lying about it... wouldn't you?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/romneys_changing_places/
However he tries to position himself now, each time Romney sought office in Massachusetts, he went to great lengths to express support for abortion rights. When he ran unsuccessfully for US Senate in 1994, he pledged to keep abortion ''safe and legal in this country." When he ran for governor in 2002, he said he supported Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and promised not to change the state's abortion policies.
when he ran for gov of mass he was to emphatic about his pro life posistion.....
me i don't give a shit.....abortion is not a fedreal issue no more than marriage or divorce....
Pale Rider
01-31-2008, 11:20 PM
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/romneys_changing_places/
However he tries to position himself now, each time Romney sought office in Massachusetts, he went to great lengths to express support for abortion rights. When he ran unsuccessfully for US Senate in 1994, he pledged to keep abortion ''safe and legal in this country." When he ran for governor in 2002, he said he supported Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and promised not to change the state's abortion policies.
when he ran for gov of mass he was to emphatic about his pro life posistion.....
me i don't give a shit.....abortion is not a fedreal issue no more than marriage or divorce....
He hasn't lied about it has he?
I think the initial point of this thread was mccain did lie.
manu1959
01-31-2008, 11:23 PM
He hasn't lied about it has he?
I think the initial point of this thread was mccain did lie.
so when romney said he was pro choice he was really pro choice he really was and now he isn't.....
and when mcain said he was against tax cut without analysis and a cut in porkbarell spending that was a lie? how exactly....
and lastly do you really believe tax cuts without spending cuts is a smart thing to do.....
Pale Rider
01-31-2008, 11:34 PM
so when romney said he was pro choice he was really pro choice he really was and now he isn't.....
and when mcain said he was against tax cut without analysis and a cut in porkbarell spending that was a lie? how exactly....
and lastly do you really believe tax cuts without spending cuts is a smart thing to do.....
Well, if you want to try and derail the mccain issue with a Romney issue, you should start a thread contending Romney is a liar.
It is my belief that the reasons mccain gave back when he voted against the tax cuts were different than ones he's giving now. That would be lying.
If Romney was pro abortion, but now he isn't, but hasn't denied the change of heart, that is not lying. Big difference.
manu1959
01-31-2008, 11:40 PM
Well, if you want to try and derail the mccain issue with a Romney issue, you should start a thread contending Romney is a liar.
It is my belief that the reasons mccain gave back when he voted against the tax cuts were different than ones he's giving now. That would be lying.
If Romney was pro abortion, but now he isn't, but hasn't denied the change of heart, that is not lying. Big difference.
just comparing the two and pointing out they have both evolved their posistion and you are willing to condemn one but not the other.....
i believe mccains positions have a consistant thread .... he believes in fiscal responsibility cut taxes / cut spending and has always been pro life and wants to seal the borders and wnats to win the war .... and he works across the aisle to make it all happen ....
Pale Rider
01-31-2008, 11:47 PM
just comparing the two and pointing out they have both evolved their posistion and you are willing to condemn one but not the other.....
i believe mccains positions have a consistant thread .... he believes in fiscal responsibility cut taxes / cut spending and has always been pro life and wants to seal the borders and wnats to win the war .... and he works across the aisle to make it all happen ....
Damn brother... are you purposely ignoring the obvious or what? mccain has changed his STORY about his reasons, not simply his position. Third time I've had to point that out... c'mon....
And he may be saying now that he wants to seal the borders, but that's far too little far too late. We all know he wants to still give ALL the illegal aliens AMNESTY, and WILL. Pro life, wow, one good mark out of how many? Works across the isle? No... more like sells out the conservative base of the republican party/kisses liberal ass.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/05/31/romneys_changing_places/
However he tries to position himself now, each time Romney sought office in Massachusetts, he went to great lengths to express support for abortion rights. When he ran unsuccessfully for US Senate in 1994, he pledged to keep abortion ''safe and legal in this country." When he ran for governor in 2002, he said he supported Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, and promised not to change the state's abortion policies.
when he ran for gov of mass he was to emphatic about his pro life posistion.....
me i don't give a shit.....abortion is not a fedreal issue no more than marriage or divorce....
Two things:
1. does make romney look shifty, no doubt. especially running in dem country. did he find "jesus"? :dunno:
2. if abortion is not a federal issue, is it a state issue? who's "issue" is it?
edit: no pun with the term "issue"
JohnDoe
02-01-2008, 12:14 AM
Hmmm... gotta link? I wasn't aware that a Mormon would ever endorse abortion... :dunno:
Surely we agree lying is unethical.
In any case, I'd say there's a big difference between changing ones position and lying about it... wouldn't you?
Look in to it Pale, I think he lied about it, several times in his history to pander for votes. i gotta git to sleep so i can't give ya a link about it now though i did post it once before in a thread with Avatar, but in the morning i will if you don't find the details on your own.
good nite :)
jd
Look in to it Pale, I think he lied about it, several times in his history to pander for votes. i gotta git to sleep so i can't give ya a link about it now though i did post it once before in a thread with Avatar, but in the morning i will if you don't find the details on your own.
good nite :)
jd
link up bad girl.....
manu1959
02-01-2008, 12:49 AM
Damn brother... are you purposely ignoring the obvious or what? mccain has changed his STORY about his reasons, not simply his position. Third time I've had to point that out... c'mon....
And he may be saying now that wants to seal the borders, but that's far too little far too late. We all know he wants to still give ALL the illegal aliens AMNESTY, and WILL. Pro life, wow, one good mark out of how many? Works across the isle? No... more like sells out the conservative base of the republican party/kisses liberal ass.
well that is your opinion...i can see that his financial views are very onsistant and i agree with them.....and yes he has evolved his posistion on imigration.....
the reality is they all can take whatever posistion they want now....when they get in....which one will be able to work with congress to get done what needs to be done which one of the four has had success getting things done.....only one of the four has a track record of getting anything done across the aisle......
all i know is i live in california.....it is up to the rest of you to stop O'Hillary....
or you will get tax and spend....surrender.....socailized medicine.....gun control......hate mccain all you want but you won't get any of those....
Kathianne
02-01-2008, 01:09 AM
well that is your opinion...i can see that his financial views are very onsistant and i agree with them.....and yes he has evolved his posistion on imigration.....
the reality is they all can take whatever posistion they want now....when they get in....which one will be able to work with congress to get done what needs to be done which one of the four has had success getting things done.....only one of the four has a track record of getting anything done across the aisle......
all i know is i live in california.....it is up to the rest of you to stop O'Hillary....
or you will get tax and spend....surrender.....socailized medicine.....gun control......hate mccain all you want but you won't get any of those....
Manu, I'm not big on 'fighting' about viewpoints. Other than Surrender, I don't trust McCain on any of those issues. Why?
In spite of McCain-Feingold, he's had zero problems in 2000 or now passing on federal funding. Since they found their ways around it, there has not been the kicking and screaming that had to happen to stop McCain-Kennedy, but have you ever heard McCain admit that intentionally or not, McCain-Feingold in essence only hurt the people through curtailing the First Amendment? I haven't.
He's never been anti-gun, but is certainly pro-limitations on the Second Amendment.
Socialized medicine? This speaks to that: http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
On taxes, well since just before 2000, when he really began running for president, he's done better, but there is a record before that:
http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53270
There is 0% trust I have with him on illegal immigration. He is more pro than Bush, which is saying alot. While he may not get through amnesty, because the people will pressure Congress, he will not do what is necessary to abate it.
well that is your opinion...i can see that his financial views are very onsistant and i agree with them.....and yes he has evolved his posistion on imigration.....
the reality is they all can take whatever posistion they want now....when they get in....which one will be able to work with congress to get done what needs to be done which one of the four has had success getting things done.....only one of the four has a track record of getting anything done across the aisle......
all i know is i live in california.....it is up to the rest of you to stop O'Hillary....
or you will get tax and spend....surrender.....socailized medicine.....gun control......hate mccain all you want but you won't get any of those....
hola
manu1959
02-01-2008, 11:27 AM
Two things:
1. does make romney look shifty, no doubt. especially running in dem country. did he find "jesus"? :dunno:
2. if abortion is not a federal issue, is it a state issue? who's "issue" is it?
edit: no pun with the term "issue"
personal decisions about abortion marriage divorce birth and death are not federal issues that should be legislated by the federal government.....
and if you can find me something in our constituion that says they have control over it educate me....
JohnDoe
02-01-2008, 11:44 AM
link up bad girl.....
Romney Delineates His Abortion Stance
Aug 14 02:03 PM US/Eastern
By GLEN JOHNSON
Associated Press Writer
BOSTON (AP) - Asked about abortion rights last week, Mitt Romney grew exasperated and said: "I'm pro-life; it would be great if we could just leave it at that."
But as his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination progresses, Romney is revealing more complex thoughts on the subject for which he has already been labeled a flip-flopper. It shows even his current position defies easy labels or rote town-hall meeting answers.
.......
The nuances of Romney's abortion views don't impress critics, who say he's shifted his position to suit his need to curry favor with the GOP's social conservatives.
"What we tell everybody is that no matter where they stand on the issue of choice, he or she should question where Mitt Romney stands," said Kelly O'Bryan, a spokeswoman for NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts.
O'Bryan recalled Romney telling her abortion rights group during an interview amid his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, "I will not allow any chipping away at Roe v. Wade." She said notes of the Sept. 26, 2002, meeting also reflect Romney saying, "You need someone in Washington like me." At the time, Romney said that while he personally opposed abortion, he would not only support Roe, but block any state action to undercut abortion rights.
Angus McQuilken, spokesman for the Massachusetts chapter of the Planned Parenthood Advocacy Fund, cited similar statements to his group both during the gubernatorial race and Romney's 1994 U.S. Senate campaign.
"The issue with Romney has always been his credibility," said McQuilken. "His current platform on abortion rights is just the latest in a long line of contradictions. What voters need to know about Mitt Romney is this: Where he stands on any issue is always a moving target."
Romney said he changed his mind on abortion after reflecting on a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem cell researcher. He said the conversation evoked images of "Brave New World" embryo cloning and convinced him he could no longer say he was personally opposed to abortion but publicly supportive of abortion rights.
Nine months later, Romney proclaimed in a newspaper opinion piece: "I am pro-life."
......
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
full article here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8R0UTH00&show_article=1&catnum=3
good morning yurt,
this is NOT the article i was looking for but it should do for now! :)
jd
good morning yurt,
this is NOT the article i was looking for but it should do for now! :)
jd
good morning to you. working out of home today, well, we will see how much 'work' gets done... and drinking this:
http://sportswrap.berecruited.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/iced_coffee_starbucks1.jpg
thanks for the link. :) i will take this into consideration.
Pale Rider
03-02-2008, 02:25 AM
Another good thread for our two new mccain cheer leaders to read....
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.