McCain Offers Tax Policies He Once Opposed (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/24/AR2008042403456.html)
Reversal Includes New Support for Bush Cuts


Now that he is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, however, McCain is marching straight down the party line. The economic package he has laid out embraces many of the tax policies he once decried: extending Bush's tax cuts he voted against, offering investment tax breaks he once believed would have little economic benefit and granting the long-held wishes of tax lobbyists he has often mocked.

...

Yet in Pittsburgh last week, in the face of a projected budget deficit of $400 billion and a sixth year of war, McCain proposed extending Bush's tax cuts, including the dividends and capital gains tax cuts, lowering the corporate income tax, allowing businesses to write off the cost of new equipment and technology, banning Internet and new cellphone taxes, and permanently extending the business tax credit for research and development.

By McCain's accounting, his tax proposals would cost the Treasury $200 billion a year.

...

"He's promising . . . tax cuts that he once voted against because he said they offended his conscience," Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) said Tuesday night. "Well, they may have stopped offending John McCain's conscience somewhere along the road to the White House, but George Bush's economic policies still offend ours."

Mr. McCain promises more of the same disastrous BushCo policies. I can't wait to hear how our conservative posters spin this!

Mr. McCain promises more of the same disastrous BushCo policies. I can't wait to hear how our conservative posters spin this!

I can already guess, they think that tax cuts always increase revenue so they think this is great. Some cons cling to voodoo economics like a religious belief.

John McCain has now crossed the ethical guidelines laid down for presidential candidates by... John McCain.

Less than a week after calling a North Carolina Republican ad tying local Democrats to Reverend Wright by way of Barack Obama "offense and divisive," McCain said yesterday that he would not comment about Wright. He then proceeded to comment about Wright - exaggerating and mischaracterizing his remarks and justifying it by pointing out that Mr. Obama called Wright "a legitimate political issue," somehow making it OK for McCain to engage in the very behavior he himself has called offensive and divisive.

You know, Mr. McCain has spent the last 20 years cultivating his image as someone with strong political principles who doesn't bend in the prevailing political winds. Interesting that he's unable to keep his position straight on so many issues - Jerry Falwell, torture, and now the wisdom and ethics of using Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue.

Do you think any conservatives/Republicans out there will notice (or care)?

John McCain has now crossed the ethical guidelines laid down for presidential candidates by... John McCain.

Less than a week after calling a North Carolina Republican ad tying local Democrats to Reverend Wright by way of Barack Obama "offense and divisive," McCain said yesterday that he would not comment about Wright. He then proceeded to comment about Wright - exaggerating and mischaracterizing his remarks and justifying it by pointing out that Mr. Obama called Wright "a legitimate political issue," somehow making it OK for McCain to engage in the very behavior he himself has called offensive and divisive.

You know, Mr. McCain has spent the last 20 years cultivating his image as someone with strong political principles who doesn't bend in the prevailing political winds. Interesting that he's unable to keep his position straight on so many issues - Jerry Falwell, torture, and now the wisdom and ethics of using Jeremiah Wright as a campaign issue.

Do you think any conservatives/Republicans out there will notice (or care)?

No, I don't think they care whether their candidate breaks the law. In fact, I know they don't care.

McCain sucks.
Obama sucks worse.

McCain sucks.
Obama sucks worse.

The hyper-partisan peanut gallery has spoken. :rolleyes:

Hey, I was the one vehemently criticizing McCain here several years ago while my friends on the left were praising him.

I'm consistent.

Consistently hyper-partisan. :rolleyes:

Consistently hyper-partisan. :rolleyes:

dharma calling someone hyper-partisan? Good lord.

Consistently hyper-partisan. :rolleyes:
Yep, I agree! A Republican saying he doesn't like another Republican is the most hyper-partisan thing in the world. Perhaps we should hang Brooks for his rabid hyper-partisanism.

Yep, I agree! A Republican saying he doesn't like another Republican is the most hyper-partisan thing in the world. Perhaps we should hang Brooks for his rabid hyper-partisanism.

Perhaps I missed where he has criticized McCain in all the threads he started recently about Obama and Wright.

He is starting to remind me of Shaman in that regard.

Brooks has been anti-McCain, or at least anti-McCain/Feingold, for as long as I've been here.

I can already guess, they think that tax cuts always increase revenue so they think this is great. Some cons cling to voodoo economics like a religious belief.

Tax cuts do increase revenue. Call it what you will to make yourself feel better, but it is true. Taking money from people directly, which seems to be your ham handed approach, is not as effective as letting them give it to you though other means of taxation.

McCain sucks.
Obama sucks worse.
Yep.

Tax cuts do increase revenue. Call it what you will to make yourself feel better, but it is true. Taking money from people directly, which seems to be your ham handed approach, is not as effective as letting them give it to you though other means of taxation.
Only in the very short term, because people will wait knowing the capital gains tax cut is coming and hold off their sales until the tax cut happens and then sell their holdings, which causes a temporary increase in revenue. When sales patterns go back to normal, average revenue falls back below what it was previously.

Brooks has been anti-McCain, or at least anti-McCain/Feingold, for as long as I've been here.
Interesting...Anti-Bipartisan... :)

Mr. McCain admits that at least part of the reason we're fighting in the Middle East is oil, and demonstrates his flip-flopping skills in the process.

McCain accidentally says what he believes about the war in Iraq (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15419.html)

No matter how long the Democratic presidential race lasts, and how much damage it does, the saving grace for the party may very well turn out to be John McCain’s inability to speak coherently about foreign policy. If he were bright and lucid, I’d probably feel a whole lot worse about Democrats’ chances.

Take his comments yesterday about Iraq, for example.

McCain hosted a town-hall event in Denver yesterday, and said, “My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

This was, to put it mildly, a shocking admission. As a rule, Republicans recoil at the suggestion that we’d fight a war for oil, and yet, here was the GOP presidential candidate admitting as much publicly.

As Chris Matthews, of all people, responded, “You know, if somebody else were to say that, they would be accused of being a communist, or radical, or a leftist…for John McCain, a war hero, to say that we’re fighting in the Middle East to protect our oil sources is an astounding development.”

Complicating matters, McCain tried to explain his way out of this, he dug in deeper.

Instead of saying he misspoke, McCain initially said he was referring to the first war in Iraq.

Republican John McCain was forced to clarify his comments Friday suggesting the Iraq war involved U.S. reliance on foreign oil. He said he was talking about the first Gulf War and not the current conflict. […]

He said he didn’t mean the U.S. went to war in Iraq five years ago over oil. “No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons,” McCain told reporters.

One reason was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, he said. “But also we didn’t want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it’s more important than any other part of the world,” he said.

McCain’s spin is patently and demonstrably false. McCain wasn’t referring to the first Gulf War during his town-hall event, he was talking about the DNC’s “100 years” ad and Democrats’ plan for ending the current war in Iraq.

And then, in case this wasn’t entertaining enough, he switched gears again, and said he wasn’t talking about the first Gulf War after all.

[W]hen specifically asked by an Associated Press reporter if, when he made the statement, he was “thinking about the first Gulf War,” he said no.

“No, I was thinking about - it’s not hard to - we will not,” McCain stumbled. “By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have to have our national security threatened by a cut off of that oil. Because we will be dependent, because we won’t be dependent, we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil. That’s what my remarks were.”

Remember, according to McCain and his media allies, his strength is foreign policy and the military.

For those keeping score at home, just recently, McCain has been confused about whether the U.S. can maintain a long-term presence in Iraq; confused about the source of violence in Iraq; confused about Iran’s relationship with al Qaeda; confused about the difference between Sunni and Shi’ia; confused about Gen. Petraeus’ responsibilities in Iraq; and confused about what transpired during the Maliki government’s recent offensive in Basra.

Worse, this isn’t a new phenomenon. As recently as November 2006, McCain couldn’t answer a reporter’s question about his own opinions on the war without reading prepared notes on national television. As recently as March 2007, McCain was embarrassing himself by insisting that Gen. Petraeus travels around Baghdad “in a non-armed Humvee” (a comment that military leaders literally laughed at, and which CNN’s Michael Ware responded to by saying McCain’s credibility “has now been left out hanging to dry.”)

I think any intellectually honest person would agree that if all of this happened to Barack Obama, he’d be laughed off the presidential stage, and the media would relentlessly insist that he was clueless and unqualified to be commander in chief during a war.

And then there’s McCain, who’ll pay no price whatsoever for having no idea what he’s talking about.

I don't think Mr. McCain is a bad guy, just old terribly confused. I honor and respect his military service and I consider him an American hero, but do I think he'd be a good president?

No way. :@@:

Mr. McCain admits that at least part of the reason we're fighting in the Middle East is oil, and demonstrates his flip-flopping skills in the process.I was going to start a thread on this and call it "McCain: FT was right all along". :)

:thumbs: Of course, that would raise a furor here. Mr. McCain's comments? Not so much.

Mr. McCain admits that at least part of the reason we're fighting in the Middle East is oil, and demonstrates his flip-flopping skills in the process.


I don't know about you, but this is one of the reasons I like McCain - he wants to acheive peace by reducing our dependence on oil from undesireable trading partners. I'm happy he's targeting the crux of our problems - dependence on foreign oil.

This is an easy issue to "flip-flop" on because the Iraq "War" is not about oil, but we probably would not be involved in Iraq if they did not have so much control of the oil market. In addition, you have the left-wing conspiracy nuts out there trying to convince the world that the U.S. invaded Iraq with the purpose of plundering it's oil reserves, and no political conservative wants to fuel those nutter-butters, so they have to choose their words very carefully if they want to talk about the situation honestly.

I was going to start a thread on this and call it "McCain: FT was right all along". :)

ROFL!

[The Iraq war] is an easy issue to "flip-flop" on

Fair enough, but only one presidential candidate hasn't done so (and it's not Mr. McCain).

I don't know about you, but this is one of the reasons I like McCain - he wants to acheive peace by reducing our dependence on oil from undesireable trading partners. I'm happy he's targeting the crux of our problems - dependence on foreign oil.

This is an easy issue to "flip-flop" on because the Iraq "War" is not about oil, but we probably would not be involved in Iraq if they did not have so much control of the oil market. In addition, you have the left-wing conspiracy nuts out there trying to convince the world that the U.S. invaded Iraq with the purpose of plundering it's oil reserves, and no political conservative wants to fuel those nutter-butters, so they have to choose their words very carefully if they want to talk about the situation honestly.
That's it exactly.

McCain has explained his remarks:

After the plane had landed, McCain himself tried to clarify his remarks, at first agreeing with his press secretary: “I was talking about that we had fought the first Gulf War for several reasons. One of them was Saddam Hussein’s invasion and that’s just not something that’s acceptable…but also we didn’t want them to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil. And it’s more important than in any other part of the world.”

McCain then summarized his point by basically restating his remarks from earlier in the day: “We will have independency of foreign oil and we will not have to have that as a factor in any conflict that we have to engage in. …I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons. That’s what I was saying. And that’s all I mean.”

But then when specifically asked by an Associated Press reporter if, when he made the statement, he was “thinking about the first Gulf War,” he said no.

“No, I was thinking about- it’s not hard to- we will not,” McCain stumbled. “By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have to have our national security threatened by a cut off of that oil. Because we will be dependent, because we won’t be dependent, we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil. That’s what my remarks were.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/975609.aspx

Thank goodness he cleared that up. :eek:

This is an easy issue to "flip-flop" on because the Iraq "War" is not about oil, but we probably would not be involved in Iraq if they did not have so much control of the oil market. In addition, you have the left-wing conspiracy nuts out there trying to convince the world that the U.S. invaded Iraq with the purpose of plundering it's oil reserves.......

:rolleyes:

"conspiracy nuts" ............?!?!?

Nice fucking smokescreen. Any time anyone dares to tell the truth about how deeply intertwined the interests of the Big Oil companies are with those of B*sh/Cheney and their cronies, simply call the whistleblowers "conspiracy nuts" or "nutter butters", declare victory in the argument and hope the topic fades from sight.

You'd have to be either insane or incredibly ignorant to not realize that the precise reason that this country went into Iraq was because of oil.

George W. Bush moved into the White House in January of 2001. Shortly thereafter, a report by the Administration-friendly Council on Foreign Relations was prepared, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century (http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm)," that advocated a more aggressive U.S. posture in the world and called for a "reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy," with access to oil repeatedly cited as a "security imperative." It's possible that inside Cheney's energy-policy papers -- which he refuses to release to Congress or the American people -- are references to foreign-policy plans for how to gain military control of oilfields abroad. (http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/PNAC.htm) We now know that some of the papers that were circulated at those meetings, two years before the war (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33642), contained maps of Iraq's oilfields and and foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts.

Case in point.

McCain has explained his remarks:

After the plane had landed, McCain himself tried to clarify his remarks, at first agreeing with his press secretary: “I was talking about that we had fought the first Gulf War for several reasons. One of them was Saddam Hussein’s invasion and that’s just not something that’s acceptable…but also we didn’t want them to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil. And it’s more important than in any other part of the world.”

McCain then summarized his point by basically restating his remarks from earlier in the day: “We will have independency of foreign oil and we will not have to have that as a factor in any conflict that we have to engage in. …I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons. That’s what I was saying. And that’s all I mean.”

But then when specifically asked by an Associated Press reporter if, when he made the statement, he was “thinking about the first Gulf War,” he said no.

“No, I was thinking about- it’s not hard to- we will not,” McCain stumbled. “By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have to have our national security threatened by a cut off of that oil. Because we will be dependent, because we won’t be dependent, we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil. That’s what my remarks were.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/02/975609.aspx

Thank goodness he cleared that up. :eek:

:lolhit:
ROFL!!!

Classic...

Fair enough, but only one presidential candidate hasn't done so (and it's not Mr. McCain).
give him time, he hasn't had the chance to yet.

Fair enough, but only one presidential candidate hasn't done so (and it's not Mr. McCain).
With all that's happened in Iraq since 2003 you'd have to be extremely stubborn, or extremely partisan, for your views not to have changed. Undoubtedly, as events have unfolded in Iraq, Obama too has changed his opinion on what needs to be done about the situation.

With all that's happened in Iraq since 2003 you'd have to be extremely stubborn, or extremely partisan, for your views not to have changed. Undoubtedly, as events have unfolded in Iraq, Obama too has changed his opinion on what needs to be done about the situation.

Seeing as his opinion started out as "Don't do it" before the invasion, of course it has changed as events unfolded.

:rolleyes:

"conspiracy nuts" ............?!?!?

Nice fucking smokescreen. Any time anyone dares to tell the truth about how deeply intertwined the interests of the Big Oil companies are with those of B*sh/Cheney and their cronies, simply call the whistleblowers "conspiracy nuts" or "nutter butters", declare victory in the argument and hope the topic fades from sight.

You'd have to be either insane or incredibly ignorant to not realize that the precise reason that this country went into Iraq was because of oil.

George W. Bush moved into the White House in January of 2001. Shortly thereafter, a report by the Administration-friendly Council on Foreign Relations was prepared, "Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21st Century (http://www.rice.edu/projects/baker/Pubs/workingpapers/cfrbipp_energy/energytf.htm)," that advocated a more aggressive U.S. posture in the world and called for a "reassessment of the role of energy in American foreign policy," with access to oil repeatedly cited as a "security imperative." It's possible that inside Cheney's energy-policy papers -- which he refuses to release to Congress or the American people -- are references to foreign-policy plans for how to gain military control of oilfields abroad. (http://www.crisispapers.org/essays/PNAC.htm) We now know that some of the papers that were circulated at those meetings, two years before the war (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33642), contained maps of Iraq's oilfields and and foreign suitors for Iraqi oil-field contracts.


You're crazy!! We went to war because the Iraqis "hate our freedom". :lolhit:

You're crazy!! We went to war because the Iraqis "hate our freedom". :lolhit:


And the fact that there are tens of millions of dimwitted little flagwavers in this country so ignorant and so gullible that they can be convinced --by the Corporate Media-- of such a preposterous notion only points up why this country is in the terrible mess it's in.

You're crazy!! We went to war because the Iraqis "hate our freedom". :lolhit:

No way, dude. It was to "bring democracy to the Middle East!" :thumbs:

No way, dude. It was to "bring democracy to the Middle East!" :thumbs:Nuh-uh.

It was WMD's!! :eek:

Wait a minute, I remember something else...

We invaded because of "Saddam’s failure to cooperate with arms inspectors."

:p

Wait a minute, I remember something else...

We invaded because of "Saddam’s failure to cooperate with arms inspectors."

:pNo, no, no.

It was to prevent al-Qaeda from establishing a base there!!

Not oil, though.

Nope. Not that.

If you believe the U.S. attacked Iraq to plunder its oil, then you belong in the same category as the loons who think the U.S. government is behind the 9/11 attacks.

If you believe the U.S. attacked Iraq to plunder its oil, then you belong in the same category as the loons who think the U.S. government is behind the 9/11 attacks.And if you believe oil had nothing to do with why we invaded Iraq there's a hole in your head where your brains leaked out.

If you believe the U.S. attacked Iraq to plunder its oil, then you belong in the same category as the loons who think the U.S. government is behind the 9/11 attacks.

A Guide to the Struggle Over Iraq's Oil

By Antonia Juhasz, AlterNet. Posted July 14, 2007.

Your guide to the ongoing dance between Bush, the Congress, and the Iraqi government; an update on the current status of the proposed oil laws; and some steps you can take to stop the hijacking of Iraq's oil.

What does a war for oil look like? American troops going into battle with tanks waving "Exxon Mobil" and "Chevron" flags right behind? Are the flags then planted squarely in the ground and the oil beneath officially declared war bounty? Well, some members of the Bush administration and U.S. oil companies may have favored such an approach. But the device ultimately chosen to win this war for oil is only slightly more subtle: a law, to be passed by the Iraqis themselves, which would turn Iraq's oil over to foreign oil companies (http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/56672/).

The U.S. State Department Iraq Study Group began laying the foundations for the new law prior to the invasion of Iraq. Its recommendations, released only after the invasion, were quickly enshrined in a draft oil law introduced to the interim Iraqi government by the U.S.-appointed interim prime minister of Iraq, Ayad Allawi (a former CIA operative).

The Bush administration has spent four years trying to force successive Iraqi governments to pass the law, referred to as either the "hydrocarbons" or "oil" law. While it has gone through several permutations, the basics have remained the same and have followed the original prescriptions set out by the State Department.

The law would change Iraq's oil system from a nationalized model -- all but closed to U.S. oil companies -- to a privatized model open to foreign corporate control. At least two-thirds of Iraq's oil would be open to foreign oil companies under terms that they usually only dream about, including 30-year-long contracts. (For details of the law, see the March 2007 New York Times Op-Ed, "Whose Oil Is It, Anyway?" (http://www.bushagenda.net/article.php?id=369))

_____________________________

In March 2001, the National Energy Policy Development Group (better known as Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force), which included executives of America’s largest energy companies, recommended that the United States government support initiatives by Middle Eastern countries “to open up areas of their energy sectors to foreign investment.” One invasion and a great deal of political engineering by the Bush administration later, this is exactly what the proposed Iraq oil law would achieve. It does so to the benefit of the companies, but to the great detriment of Iraq’s economy, democracy and sovereignty.

And if you believe oil had nothing to do with why we invaded Iraq there's a hole in your head where your brains leaked out.
beyond the side effect of it being allowed into the world market again, it has done nothing for us.

If you believe the U.S. attacked Iraq to plunder its oil, then you belong in the same category as the loons who think the U.S. government is behind the 9/11 attacks.

That's a big bridge you are building. You can relate anything to anything to make people look loony. For example, if you believe the US attached Iraq to plunder its oil, then you belong in the same category as the loons who think we have aliens in Area 51.

Yesterday, John McCain fired up his Spanish language website... two years after he voted to make English the national official language of the United States. Como se dice flip-flop?

And, while this isn't so much a flip-flop as it is an "OMG. He didn't really say that, did he!?" moment, yesterday Mr. McCain used the word Jihadists, less than two weeks after the State Department told U.S. officials never to use that term because it legitimizes terrorists in the eyes of the Muslim world.

:slap:

Language is a continuing problem for Mr. McCain. I sincerely hope it doesn't become a problem for our country.

Yesterday, John McCain fired up his Spanish language website... two years after he voted to make English the national official language of the United States. Como se dice flip-flop?
Although it pisses me off, I don't see it as a flip-flop, per se. That said, it also pisses me off when I see Spanish written on the side of a Gatorade bottle, but the reality is, they're marketing a product. McCain's essentially doing the same thing in that he's marketing himself.

The important thing to me is that he voted to make English the official language of the United States.

The important thing to me is that he voted to make English the official language of the United States.

I hope he sticks to it. Having a Spanish language site is just giving in. BTW, I am for English as the official and national language in the US. It pisses me off when I see people who have been here for like 20 years (since they were 10 or something) and can't speak somewhat proper english.

Now you only see that with Spanish speaking people. You don't see some Hungarian coming here and getting by with Hungarian for 20 odd years!!

That's a big bridge you are building. You can relate anything to anything to make people look loony. For example, if you believe the US attached Iraq to plunder its oil, then you belong in the same category as the loons who think we have aliens in Area 51.
everyone knows the ETs are at Wright-Patterson AFB:banana:

I hope he sticks to it. Having a Spanish language site is just giving in. BTW, I am for English as the official and national language in the US. It pisses me off when I see people who have been here for like 20 years (since they were 10 or something) and can't speak somewhat proper english.

Now you only see that with Spanish speaking people. You don't see some Hungarian coming here and getting by with Hungarian for 20 odd years!!
it depends on what they need. in all immigrant neighborhoods, you'll hear their native tongue. don't go to Brighton Beach w/o an English/Russian dictionary. get them out of there and they have to work on their English.

it depends on what they need. in all immigrant neighborhoods, you'll hear their native tongue. don't go to Brighton Beach w/o an English/Russian dictionary. get them out of there and they have to work on their English.
Exactly. Unless anyone is proposing prohibiting immigrants from settling in neighborhoods with their fellow countrymen, there's nothing we can do about some people spending decades in the U.S. without learning English. It's not as if this is a new problem - we heard the same complaints about Italian, German, and Yiddish 100-150 years ago.

It's not as if this is a new problem - we heard the same complaints about Italian, German, and Yiddish 100-150 years ago.
It's JMO, but that doesn't make the "problem" identical. The Italians and Germans weren't given the handouts these people are being given today; assimilation was necessary to survive 100 years ago. Now, all they have to do is find a new shithole "barrio" to live in. Spanish speaking enclaves are EVERYWHERE in this country. They've created whole towns in the image of the "motherland", and the best part is....we're payin' for 'em.

JMO, but that doesn't make the "problem" identical.
The immigration problem, because of the illegality issue, is not. The language problem is.