More Lies: McCain changes story on tax cut stance

[Yurt]

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

This should be a wake up call to those in favor of McCain

[manu1959]

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

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....

[Yurt]

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]

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....

[Yurt]

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]

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.....

[Yurt]

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]

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....

[Yurt]

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....

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]

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]

counselor, i object to this leading examination....

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..........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]

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?.....

[Yurt]

you caught me..........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

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]

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...

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]

Hmmm... gotta link? I wasn't aware that a Mormon would ever endorse abortion...

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/edi...anging_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....