WSJ echoed McCain's dubious defense of vote against Bush tax cuts
SUMMARY: In an article on Sen. John McCain's economic proposals, The Wall Street Journal reported that McCain "famously opposed President Bush's tax cuts a few years ago, saying they would irresponsibly swell the budget deficit." But, while that is the reason McCain now gives for having previously opposed the tax cuts, it was not the reason he gave in a 2001 floor statement explaining his opposition, in which he criticized the tax cuts for disproportionately benefiting the wealthy.
In the first sentence of an April 16 Wall Street Journal article on Sen. John McCain's economic proposals, staff writer Laura Meckler reported that McCain "famously opposed President Bush's tax cuts a few years ago, saying they would irresponsibly swell the budget deficit." While that is in fact the reason that McCain gives now for voting against the Bush tax cuts -- that they were not paired with spending cuts -- which many in the media have uncritically repeated, it was not the reason he gave in 2001 on the floor of the Senate. In his May 2001 statement explaining his opposition to the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) conference committee report -- the final version of Bush's initial tax-cut package, which became law -- McCain said that while he supported an earlier version of the bill "that provided more tax relief to middle income Americans," he could not "in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." He made no mention of deficit concerns or of the absence of offsetting spending cuts.
Few in the media have noted that on the campaign trail, McCain gives a different reason for originally opposing the tax cuts than he stated at the time.
From the April 16 Wall Street Journal article:
John McCain famously opposed President Bush's tax cuts a few years ago, saying they would irresponsibly swell the budget deficit. Now the Arizona senator not only supports extending those cuts indefinitely, he is backing more than $200 billion a year in new breaks.
The Republican presidential candidate's platform sets up a sharp clash with his eventual Democratic rival over taxes, spending and fiscal responsibility.
OK, I understand the urge to hang the flip flop label on McCain here, warranted or not, so what?
The point is he is for extending the tax cuts now, the Democratic candidates are not. This is a real meat and potatoes substance issue where the attention should be focused on the merit, the advantages, the disadvantages, the ramifications and so on of each's position on this issue.
This distracting "gotcha" muddying of this issue solves nothing and is just a disservice to the voters who are owed honest debate and discussion on this issue.
(Btw, I would say the same to Obama regarding his constant mention of Hillary's vote for the war authorization years ago. It's done, it's over, replaying it now for political gain gets us nowhere).
So Tommy, I'm assuming you are for the tax cuts...
Personally, I want to see us reduce spending first and foremost...And only after we have a balanced budget should we begin thinking about tax cuts...especially in a time of war.
So, raising taxes on the "wealthy" is cutting their entitlements? So, the money they earn is really the govenments to begin with, is that your position Colonel?
Because it's classic liberalism and I wouldn't expect anything but that. Thanks for clarifying.
So, the money they earn is really the govenments to begin with, is that your position Colonel?
No. You just made that up.
So please explain what "cutting entitlements to the wealthy elite" means, Colonel?
You said it, can't you defend it?
I'm not obligated to "defend" things I write against your inability to understand them.
His point was quite clear, you disagree with it and it drives you nuts. Right?
It hardly drives me nuts, I find it rather delicious that he thinks the money people earn is the first the governments, then the person who earns it.
If that's not it, I am waiting for clarification, can you do that?
I could. But I spent a bit of time the other day explaining to you how part of something could be eliminated , and you refused to learn anything. So I won't.
Gov, I thought one of them would figure it out. Their buzzwords are really programmed in, aren't they?
ENTITLEMENTS !!!!!!!!!
You are kind of all over the place here Brab. First you say "His point was quite clear".......then you say you were waiting for the same clarification from him that I was, now you say you're waiting on something from me?
You just want to argue so you can haul out and call me a "troll", a "jackass", and then tell me to "shut the hell up". Just do it now and save us both alot of time.
You mean let you off the hook, Tommy. Here's a starting point; If Brab found my point "perfectly clear", why would he be waiting for clarification from me?
I must agree.............. "Delicious" !
Colonel, You can't even defend what you wrote. My original question stands.
But if you don't want to answer, then I have my answer and I was correct in my assumption, which I knew I was anyway.
There is no end to your cuteness, is there Col?
Col.
What exactly did you mean by "cutting entitlements to the wealthy elite"?
Thanks, 2001 Sen. John McCain. But it's now 2008 and we're trying to understand your position on tax cuts as you run for POTUS today. Oh, never mind, we conservatives don't really care, we'd rather mock so-called liberals in an oh-so-boring battle of whogivesashit.
Sorry Gov, you mock yourself with that irrelevant and non-responsive silliness to AA's, and my, original quest for the good Colonel's clarification.
Two peas in a pod.
Exactly AA, but you know some of those darn liberals, half their schtick is not letting people know what you really believe. Play it cute and coy, even when asked a direct clarification question, that we have tried to do all day, on this very topic.
The Colonel and the Governor aren't sure themselves, obviously.
What specifically are you asserting it is that I'm unsure of?
The Colonel brought you into this when you supposedly answered our question, but it was no clearer and just as muddled as all his previous non-answers.
As for what you're specifically unsure of, perhaps it's the spelling of the word "fcuk", because the last time you told me to do that to myself you misspelled it. Try that first.
This distracting "gotcha" muddying of this issue solves nothing and is just a disservice to the voters who are owed honest debate and discussion on this issue.
-- WiseManWhoSitsOnFatAss / Wednesday April 16, 2008 11:48:24 AM EDT
So, there are "voters" that are being disserviced here regarding my question for the Colonel? Who are these voters Governor, and where can I get a ballot? Or is it just a show of hands?
And another desperate expletive tossed out by your potty mouth. Eloquent, my good man.
This is pretty good, I said one of Gramps' positions is "cutting entitlements to the wealthy elite"
And Tommy asks "So, the money they earn is really the govenments to begin with, is that your position Colonel?"
Me: No..
& Tommy sez; Play it cute and coy, even when asked a direct clarification question,
,
Correct me if I am wrong but aApparently you think tax cuts and entitlements are synonymous.- anotheramerican
You're wrong.
No, I was saying that I was waiting for clarification from you, not him. Obviously that was the context since I was pointing out that you expect answers from other people but you wouldn't answer mine. That's hypocritical, and that's the sole purpose of the conversation. I figure you're smart enough to know that, and you're just being "cute" like you criticize the Col. for.
If you make an honest argument and don't throw shots at me then I'm not going to say any of those things. It's all on you. Personal responsibility and all that, you know.
Grow up.
If you determine I am not making an honest argument then you have the right to call me a jackass, and tell me to shut the hell up.
And you have the gaul to talk about an honest argument? Never mind, your true stripes are finally showing and if you're proud of tossing out expletives that should have you banned from this website, be my guest.
I can determine if you're making an honest argument by your behavior. When you're asked questions and you dodge them four or five times, when you attribute ridiculous motives, when you make absurd declarations you can't support, when you slander people solely because they disagree with you, then you don't deserve respect. You seem to think you're owed something that you have to earn, odd behavior for someone of your ideology.
Just because your temper has managed to marginalize you into nothing more than a nasty partisan bombthrower, don't blame me for that. I know it's a knee jerk reaction by some liberals to point fingers to deflect responsibility, and it may work around here as standard fare, but it hardly impresses me. If I have that much power over your words that I can manipulate you into reaching into your bag of invective slurs, then you'd better ask yourself why, and how?
So, when you can act like an adult and discuss without benefit of gutter language, let me know - perhaps I will accept your apology then.
Enjoy your evening.
"Just because your temper has managed to marginalize you into nothing more than a nasty partisan bombthrower, don't blame me for that. I know it's a knee jerk reaction by some liberals to point fingers to deflect responsibility, and it may work around here as standard fare, but it hardly impresses me. If I have that much power over your words that I can manipulate you into reaching into your bag of invective slurs, then you'd better ask yourself why, and how?"
Isn't calling people dishonest elitists because they disagree with you partisan bombthrowing? I don't see anything partisan in what I've said, it's all directly addressed to you. The why and how is simply that you got the response you deserved. If you're spouting a bunch of crap you can't defend, then you should shut up. I don't see what's unfair about that. If you're going to assign motives to me unfairly and call me a troll for asking a valid question, then I'm going to let you know that's unacceptable in no uncertain terms. I couldn't care less if that offends you, because you so rarely adjust your behavior to accommodate others here.
"So, when you can act like an adult and discuss without benefit of gutter language, let me know - perhaps I will accept your apology then."
And this is typical Tommy. You don't apologize when you lob insults at me, except once I can recall. Otherwise you say they're "deserved" without explaining how or why. And somehow your temper isn't an issue then. But when I explain exactly how you're being inflammatory, then you expect an apology from me. Just like expecting other people to explain themselves when you can't answer a simple question about something you said. Always the double standard.
If you can explain how you were being reasonable, then I'll apologize. You didn't want to "discuss" that "like an adult" at the time, so I don't expect you to now. Otherwise, you get what you give, so quit whining about it.
he thinks the money people earn is the first the governments, then the person who earns it.
This morning I saw the pay of the hedge-fund managers (markets still not under federal control). Six or seven of them made more than a $1 BILLION last year - one guy even made more than $1 million an HOUR.
Tommy, raising the taxes on these guys is going to hurt whom? Please be specific.
Tommy, what you just did there, that's called spin. Putting what someone else said in the most negative light possible.
I think you need a trip to the No Spin Zone
That's and easy one Tommy - anyway they can.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/opinion/15conniff.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin
"So, you are advocating we base tax policy on the level of 'hurt' it inflicts on taxpayers, individually, specifically? Sorry, I disagree."
Tell me, in the first statement, is he really saying what you accuse him of saying? He's claiming that because these guys make grandiose amounts of money, much of which is on dividends, that it's not going to inflict economic pain on these billionaires to pay the same tax rate as, say, I do. Now how that translates as we should base our tax policy on the level of "hurt" it inflicts on the individual taxpayer, I just don't quite get. Perhaps you could explain that better.
DB,
I didn't use the word "hurt", he did. If it's not going to "hurt", then what is the problem, why the beef? In other words, all other rationales or basis' for taxation policy are secondary to how much the tax "hurts" or not. Otherwise, why bring it up at all?
He introduced as his first reason to raise the taxes on these billionaires, why would he not use as evidence the best ammunition he has, why not?
What you're saying is ridiculous.
why would he not use as evidence the best ammunition he has, why not?- tommy
Tommy, I think this says a lot about you.Maybe you don't realize that everyone here isn't in a water-pistol fight with you. Sometimes these questions are actually trying to get some insight into your reasoning.If you'd relax with all of your word-parsing and bullsh*tting, you might see that it's not all "ammunition".Sometimes a question is just to get an answer, or to prod you to consider something besides your sacred conservative position that you're fighting for.
I still think you're cute, though.
it's not going to inflict economic pain on these billionaires to pay the same tax rate as, say, I do.
I won't speak for Tommy but if you're advocating all taxpayers, regardless of income above a defined poverty level, pay the same tax rate - I'm with you on that!.
"playing gotcha games with who said what when distracts all of us from the substance."
Kinda like how focusing on a Democratic debate drivers license question distracts from talking about the Real ID Act.
Regardless, I agree.
If their positions are clear, then you are 100% right.
Ah, so it's conditional. Words are only allowed to haunt you if your position was unclear. Shift-flopping does not apply. I wish this condition was in effect back in '04.
Off topic, I only mentioned in ( ) as a btw.
Do you want to derail the topic in an off topic discussion?
Anybody can see the comparison I was making, I made my point. If it comes up on another thread I will be glad to expand on my comments. You will just have to be patient.
I don't care about something being off-topic. It should be a simple clarification of your point to make, but if you're uncomfortable explaining your own words, so be it. I'd think you wouldn't bring it up if your thoughts weren't fully fleshed out.
My point was quite clear, you just don't agree with it and that drives you nuts.
Tough.
Why would it be "muddying" the issue for the WSJ to actually do their jobs and tell us the truth.
How would it be "muddying" for an actual responsible journalist to ask the blatently obvious question, "If you opposed the Bush tax cuts because they would raise the deficit, as you say, why would you support them now? Is it because of that massive surplus we have, or did the nature of our economic system magically change in the last few years to make that position no longer valid?"
Personally, I don't care why he opposed them before. Both explainations are true, and both are being violated by his support of them now. And, no reporter is asking that obvious question, "what changed", because they may not get that invite to the next bbq.
If your more interested in McCain's change of heart, or mind, or whatever, than the ramifications and the substance of an issue itself, that is your business, and just more politics as usual.
Or perhaps it's because you'd rather not have that substantive debate regarding the pros and cons of raising taxes, because liberals normally lose that argument.
That must be it.
That's your response? What pathetic attempt to win argument points by ignoring all substance and logic. Your responses are like arguing with a seven year old.
You tell me how asking a person to explain what caused them to change positions on a policy issue is not talking about their current positions on a policy issue. Please enlighten us on how it is a gotcha game to ask a candidate why he believes that the bush tax cuts will not raise the deficit when he previously did. Was he wrong then or is he wrong now? In what way is that not getting to the meat of his position on the issue? In what way does that not help to enlighten us on his current opinions of tax cuts for the wealthy?
As for your second part, if only we had evidence that our economy did well with responsible taxation and went into the crapper when taxes were cut for the wealthiest citizens. I just wish that there was a history in this country of great expansion under progressive taxation and massive deficits and debt under voodoo economics that I could show you to prove you wrong. Oh well, since that never happened in your bizarro universe, I guess you will walk around for the rest of your life convinced that you are correct on that point regardless of what is put in front of your face.
Hi Tommy,
I agree with you on having a debate on the merits of the tax cut issue and I am more than ok with it. That being said, I think its also important to call McCain, not on his flip-flop, but for the rhetoric behind it.
Initially, he made statements saying he could not vote for the tax cuts because he felt that too much of the cut was going to the wealthy. Lately, and I even saw him get caught on this on Fox News, he has said that when he was voting for them, he was against them because there was no corresponding cut in spending. He claimed that he made that statement on the record and at the time. However, there is no evidence he made that remark at the time he voted against the tax cuts.
To me, McCain's doublespeak on this issue is at least as important as pointing out Clinton's bizarre sniper story because, at best, he is not remembering what he said, at worst, he lied.
Just my view....
Fried,
I am saying if that bothers you about McCain, then that should absolutely influence your voting choice where he is concerned. I don't tell anyone how or why they should vote for anyone, that is their business.
It is my personal opinion that the debate on this important issue is getting lost in the he said, she said realm and ultimately, on the substance of this issue, that is a disservice to voters, from both sides.
You make valid points as always.
Tommy,
I just agree that his inconsistencies should be pointed out. He should make his position firm, even say he was wrong if he now believes he was and go from there.
Tommy - to me this is an issue with JM's core values. To say he is against the tax cuts because of a disproportionate advantage to the wealthy is a very liberal position. To then say he is against the tax cuts for deficit reasons is a more moderate position, To then say he is for the tax cuts as economic stimulus is a conservative position.
If he really believes the tax cuts are beneficial to the economy he will work hard to keep them in place. However if he is just moving to the right to secure the conservative (not republican) base he might not give it his best efforts if he wins.
BC made a promise of a middle class tax cut when he ran in '92 but before he took office he scrapped that idea. I bought it then - not so sure now.
Please, I honestly would like to know:
Why do you think that a journalist blindly repeating a giant whopper handed to them by a political candidate is not misinformation. If that isn't, then what is?
Are you serious? Are you really claiming that being against a tax cut because it benifits mostly the wealthy or as John put it
a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief
That is a very liberal position? Thats crazy. I mean as a very liberal myself I agree with it but it is a very MAINSTREAM position. It is a very CONSERVATIVE position that we ought to give tax cuts to the wealthiest among us at the expense of the working class.
TTut,
I think you make some great points. I agree with MMFA that McCain should answer the question why he has changed his position.
I think McCain ought to tell us how he thinks we will pay off the costs of the war. As a matter of fact, I think I would like to hear from Obama and Hillary their plan on paying it off too.
I would also like to hear what each candidate has to say about deficit spending.
Add to it, I'd like to hear how much each candidate thinks is the proper amount of taxes that each of us should pay. I'd also like them to explain if there is a difference between tax revenue and government payout, how they justify their reasons for the government spending more than the government takes in.
I'd like to see any candidate advocates rolling back to the level of government spending in Clinton years as a part of a method of balancing the budget.
"I think McCain ought to tell us how he thinks we will pay off the costs of the war. As a matter of fact, I think I would like to hear from Obama and Hillary their plan on paying it off too."
AA, as far as McCain, I don't think he plans on paying off the costs of the war. One of the biggest flaws of Reaganomics is the notion of deficit spending, that our deficits don't really matter.
And it really is refreshing to hear you wishing the government pushed government spending back to the Clinton-era level. I completely agree.
DB,
While we are in agreement about cutting spending, I do believe deficit spending came along long before Reagan.
ps.
Personally, I'd like to see Federal Spending cut more than that, but it would be a start.
I would rather spend money bring about a democracy in Iraq than earmarks, bondoogles, and needless subsidies. It's all in how you set your priorities.
I am all for billing the Iraqi's for services rendered. However if it never happens I still think we are doing the right thing by helping them.
It might be interesting if the media asked McCain where he would cut the budget ---would he cut whole programs or just "freeze" spending levels.
The budget is always an issue in political campaigns but rarely is discussed in detail.
As far as deficit spending is concerned from what I have read, the big banks derive financial benefits from "monetizing the debt" so deficits might not matter to conservative republicans.