McCain reneges on tax promise...

Another flip-flop during an election year - :eek:


Social Security does need to be fixed, Bush didn't push his privitization - I called my reps in support though.

Too many SSI, SSDI, Section 8, illegal alien payments, and the rest that was not intended at the outset.

Oops, not Illegal Alien, Illegal Immigrant, no, Undocumented Immigrant, no Undocumented Worker :barf:
 
NOT undocumented worker

I refuse to play the word games, and although I may
have sympathy for their plight (for only some, though).

THEY ARE CRIMINAL (they broke the law, knowingly, else
they wouldn't have snuck and hid their way over the
border) INVADERS (they are here, many of them, if not
most, to conquer a portion of our country, they say so
themselves; if not, they have still invaded our sovereign
borders).

:mad:
 
Last edited:
We need to dismantle SS, not throw more money at it.

The best fix is to immediately take everyone age 40 or under and have them only pay 1/2 SS/FICA that they currently pay, and put the rest in a retirement account. In another 20 years, take the remaining half.

We have too many unfunded mandates as is, and SS is going to eat us alive if we keep letting it run the way it is.

McCain: no new taxes. You'd better not cater to the retired and baby boomer groups on this one. You'll screw the country up even worse than it already is.

I swear, I'm tempted to quit my nice-paying job, pay off all my bills and get a crap job at 25K or so. You tax me, and you give me less incentive to work and be productive.
 
The best fix is to immediately take everyone age 40 or under and have them only pay 1/2 SS/FICA that they currently pay, and put the rest in a retirement account.
Click to expand...

And how do you propose to pay the huge current SS bill?
 
The same way we pay every other unfunded government bill... Foreign lending and bonds.

But, at least we have a timeline to STOP getting into more debt. And we can eliminate the SS portion of the budget within 40 years or however long it takes to transition the workers to saving for themselves and have all the existing SS dependents die off while using their benefits.

Then... we're done with it. Forever. And we can pay off the debt.
 
The same way we pay every other unfunded government bill... Foreign lending and bonds. But, at least we have a timeline to STOP getting into more debt.
Click to expand...

By "foreign lending" I assume you mean "borrowing". And by selling bonds I assume you mean "borrowing.

How does all of this borrowing get us out of debt?
 
Well, sasquatch, we both agree that the status quo doesn't ever get us out of debt.

Last I looked, Social Security and welfare entitlements accounted for about 60% of the entire Federal Budget. That's HUGE.

2006 shows a .gov intake of 2.2Trillion, and an expenditure of 2.7Trillion. That's a 500Billion deficit.

1.5Trillion of the budget is from SS, Unemployment, welfare, medicare and medicaid. SS alone is over 500Billion.

We cut the FICA intake (currently 800Billion) slowly by taking the middle-aged and young off of the SS system in decreasing age groups. We lose income, but we also lose future liability.

Let's say it takes 10 years to take the workforce down to a 50% contribution to SS from the current 800Billion to 400Billion. We have to borrow another 400Billion to make up for it.

But, in 20 years after that when those workers are no longer using SS benefits (or reduced benefits at least), our SS outlays will be 250Billion instead. Plus, we will have worked on weaning people off Medicare/Medicaid (total of ~600Billion) to about 300Billion. After all, they've been taxed less and have more money to put into self reliance programs. That's an annual net savings of 150Billion when the time comes, 30 years from now.

And the picture gets better, the more you trim SS and social service expenses. They cost more than they raise from FICA related taxes, to the everlasting ruin of the budget.

But... if we eliminate FICA taxes entirely (800Billion) but also eliminate welfare-state and nanny-state programs (1.5Trillion) we end up with a budget surplus of 300Billion from our current situation on our current tax scheme.

We can pay off the national debt with that surplus, eliminating the 200+Billion in interest payments we make in the budget, and then lower taxes when the nation is debt free again.
 
Stretching 'nothings off the table' where Social Security is concerned into an intent to raise taxes and therefore into a flip-flop eh. Glad it takes that much effort to impune the man.

BTW he would have to actually raise taxes for it to be a reneg........actually he would have to agree not to raise taxes if someone else agreed to do something for him, then that person doing that for him, THEN him raising taxes to be a regeg. Heck calling it a reneg is more directly dishonest then saying 'nothings off the table' where social secuity is concerned after a no new taxes promise.....ironic isn't it.
 
McCain had previously said he would raise no taxes, as in NONE.

Now he says nothing is off the table.

If that is not going back on your word, I don't know what is.

Maybe this was just some incredibly poor choice of words by McCain, but generally he is pretty clear when he talks.
 
McCain had previously said he would raise no taxes, as in NONE.

Now he says nothing is off the table.

If that is not going back on your word, I don't know what is.

Maybe this was just some incredibly poor choice of words by McCain, but generally he is pretty clear when he talks.
Click to expand...

Well, he's not elected yet. So at this point it's not so much "going back on his word" as "changing his mind." The inability (or unwillingness) to do so is not always a good thing. At this point it's not like anybody voting in November will have any reason to vote based on the "no tax increase" promise, so I don't see it as a huge deal.

Even if he did change position after elected, see the above.
 
What is the difference between "changing his mind" and "Flip-flopping"... Oh I remember now. Republicans change their minds, but when Democrats do it, its called a flip flop.
 
KERRY was a flip flopper. More so than a loose fish in the boat or a cook at Denny's during a pancake special. At least McCain is doing it now instead of in the oddly shaped yet symmetrical space of commerce and management inside a dwelling colored to scatter light rather than reflect particular wavelengths. (sorry, late in shift, bored out of wits)
 
I watched the interview with McCain Sunday morning. Stephanopoulos was trying to back McCain in a corner. Reading the transcripts and listening to the media is MUCH different than actually seeing the words coming from McCain's mouth. I agree that EVERYTHING should be on the table when making a decision, at least that's the way I like to make my decisions. Maybe some would only like to look at the part of the problem that is convenient to them...:rolleyes:

Just FYI McCain made it CLEAR yesterday that he wanted NO tax increases.
 
Kerry didn't flip flop in the White House either, did he?
Click to expand...

Where in my post did I say Kerry or McCain were in the WH? Grammer would dictate that my last statement pertained to McCain only and was intended to refer to McCain only. My statement was (to make it clearer than mud this time) that at least we see his wavering stance about it now instead of later if he is in the said structure colored to refract instead of reflect specific wavelengths of light. Take H W bush in context and his "read my lips" comment and you have my point.
 
My statement was (to make it clearer than mud this time) that at least we see his wavering stance about it now instead of later if he is in the said structure colored to refract instead of reflect specific wavelengths of light.
Click to expand...

I guess I still don't get what you are saying.

I thought you meant that at least McCain was flip-flopping before he got into the White House.

Would it be easier to just use plain English rather than cute analogies?
 
Just FYI McCain made it CLEAR yesterday that he wanted NO tax increases.
Click to expand...

Not so sure he made any thing clear.... other than he panders and does a mean two step flip flop...

March 16:

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.
Click to expand...

July 7th

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."
Click to expand...

July 9th

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.
Click to expand...

July 27th

"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."
Click to expand...

July 29th

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

Pandering? Flip flopping? Forgetful? Maybe just another election year two step. Sadly, this could be any candidate from any party.
 
MY opinion,

Obama isnt flip flopping, he isnt changing his positions at all.
He is a LIAR he is telling folks what they want to hear. If, and When he gets elected he will simply implement his long held beliefs. Socialist wealth redistribution, Gun control, extreme left wing Marxism.

McCain on the other hand has changed a few of his positions, becuase the old ones simply arent working for him.

We just got done 7.5 years of a man who never changed his positions even when confronted with the reality of those positions being wrong. Anyone think that doing what has failed repeatedly is a recipie for success??:barf:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top