Granted, it is ridiculous to refer to what Obama did as a "terrorist fist jab." But on the other hand, that makes more sense than referring to a potential McCain presidency as a "third Bush term."
Maybe a more fair comparison, and certainly a more important one, would be that Obama's potential eight years in office would be a "sixth Castro decade." Or maybe, a bit scarier, a "second Carter term." Well, no, I take it back, those aren't fair comparisons to "third Bush term," because they are far more meaningful and accurate.
It's funny to me how people will be so selective in what utter nonsense they find offensive. I find about 80 percent of Obama's policies to be far more offensive than any junior-high namecalling you could dream up. But those are things that actually matter, so therefore we should not care about them, I suppose.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 09, 2008 03:08 PM | Email ThisWith regards to your "third" Bush term issue, why do you find it so offensive. Yes, McCain has some differences from Bush, but he also wants to continue many of Bush's policies and has throughout these last eight years, "sucked" up to Bush whenever he could so that he could be the heir apparent front-runner for the primaries. Now, all of a sudden, he has to distance himself? The title fits because of McCain's "sucking" up all these past eight years.
Posted by: tc on June 9, 2008 04:08 PMIt's good to see the campaigns giving the people more of what they really want.
I defy you to list significant policy differences between Obama and McCain, other than "keep troops in Iraq until the Iraqi government can handle it themselves." Not that there are not differences, but those differences that do exist make Obama look pretty terrible.
I'll throw you a softball though: McCain wants to put a moratorium on the gas tax which might actually INCREASE the revenues of oil companies, and not decrease prices. That is the only one -- again, excluding Iraq, which is its own big topic -- that I think to many people might make Obama look better than McCain. Got any others? I won't hold my breath.
I hear a lot about how Obama is different from "McBush" because he would work more with other countries, be more bipartisan with Congress, get more people around him who know what they are doing ... except that is not different from McCain at all (and in fact, McCain has MUCH more experience at bipartisanship, even while Obama has been in the Senate, than Obama). It's another lie.
McCain's great speech Tuesday night said it perfectly (paraphrasing here since I am too lazy to look it up): Obama feels the need to keep repeating "third Bush term" because he knows damn well that it's hard to convince people of a lie.
McCain is closer to Obama than he is to Bush. And Obama himself backtracked on his promise to immediately pull the troops out of Iraq if elected.
Now for policy differences, Obama believes we should bomb our allies and befriend our enemies. He already said he will bomb Pakistan.
And is Obama now a tin pin patriot because he wears the flag pin? Hmm? Because before we were told that he had a deep patriotism that wasn't like a chintzy China made flag pin.
How many years did Obama serve his country's military?
Posted by: pbj on June 9, 2008 04:36 PMI am giving them the opportunity here. I predict they won't come out well. They didn't last time, as you know.
Regardless, McCain has laid out how he is different.
Posted by: pudge on June 9, 2008 04:37 PMAs for the talk of bi-partisanship, McCain is the only candidate that walks the walk, while Obama just talks the talk. Obama's only paired with 1 Republican (Tom Coburn) as far as I know to introduce a bill, so like his resume in total, pretty thin record there.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 9, 2008 06:12 PMI just watched John Kerry on "This Week" debating Lindsey Graham.
First, I almost forgot what a completely useless bloke Kerry is. Between his complete and total lies ("John McCain said he doesn't know anything about the economy," "Barack Obama does not accept any PAC or lobbyist money") and evasions (when pointing out that McCain wants to keep taxes low while Obama wants to increase them, he started talking about how McCain "votes with Bush 95 percent of the time," which is not only a lie, but a red herring) ...
But the best part is when he said Obama is bipartisan, and Graham -- who has been at McCain's side on almost all these bipartisan battles for years -- gave an impassioned mini-speech about how Obama is all talk, and he is exactly right. Obama is a leftist who gives a good "We Are The World" speech, but not much else.
1. McCain supports the federal dept of education
2. McCain supports the federal dept of energy
3. McCain supports the war in Iraq
4. McCain supports the war on drugs.
5. McCain supports the Patriot act
6. McCain supports FEMA
7. McCain supports non negotiation with Iran
8. MCCain supports the Federal Reserve and fiat currency
9. McCain supports amnesty for illegals.
10. McCain supports Bushs bloated budgets and will not cut it by a dime.
11. McCain supports preventing US citizens from trading with Cuba.
12. McCain supports the economic stimulus package.
Should I continue?
I can't even watch a TV segment with a piece of human filth like Kerry present without my BP skyrocketing up. It's a disgrace this man actually represents a state in the Union of this Country after his acts of sedition for the past nearly 40 years. I was hoping his asinine remarks about getting stuck in Iraq a year or so back would finally close the barn door on Mr. Ed, but I guess that will ultimately be up to the people of Massachussetts.
As for Obama, I can't figure out why so many people can't see through his facade. He says he wants transparency on earmarks but drags his feet on finally releasing his for public consumption on his website. He says he's bipartisan when his record clearly states he's anything but. Fortunately, I think as the next 4+ months unravel, so too will Sen. Obama's thin veneer of sincerity. It was persons like Obama in which Abraham Lincoln was referring to when he coined the "fool the people" phrase.
Posted by: Rick D. on June 9, 2008 08:06 PM1. Economy - Starting out with topic number 1.
On taxes, both McCain and Obama propose middle class tax cuts, which is a departure from Bush. However, McCain has revised his fiscal policy from 2000 to accept Bush's position on the high income tax cuts. McCain now wants to make them permanent. Obama wants to repeal these top end (just the top end, not all) tax cuts. Reasoning for Obama's approach is fiscal responsibility, which is where McCain used to be. McCain has moved to Bush's position from his sound fiscally conservative position in 2000. Now, McCain has "Bush" colored glasses and thinks that revenues alone will make up the tax cuts. Obama's position is one of pay-go and can be most closely associated with Clinton's second term philosophy of targeted tax cuts that are paid for by spending cuts in other parts of the budget. Obama has also committed to not going ahead with a proposal unless it is paid for. McCain follows Bush's philosophy of go-ahead and hope revenues pay for it later, which is not fiscally conservative, nor is is pay-go position of Obama. Both have room to improve overall on economic issues, but McCain by adopting Bush's policy on tax cuts has a lot farther to go.
2. Energy Policy - Probably going to be issue #2 with the way gas prices are going. McCain does not call this issue out specifically on his website. While McCain has departed from the President some on a few energy issues, he has also sided with the President's position on several more. McCain sides with Bush with regards to the Oil industry (pooh-pooh's idea of windfall profit tax). Obama in contrast calls for a windfall profit tax. So, on this issue, there is a difference. McCain has resurrected his gas tax holiday idea, which is at odds with the President. This is one area where Obama and the President are in agreement, along with every econonomist in the country. It wasn't hard for Bush to get this one right. McCain carrys on Bush's tradition of assuming the best of industry and if you dangle a few carrots out there (tax incentive here, tax cut there), they will just come around and build the green economy. Obama takes a more activist role for government and sets benchmarks for industry to achieve, introduces back in some regulation to guide industry towards the benchmarks, and also offers specific carrots to also guide industry to the benchmarks. The key difference is government leading by setting the direction instead of the Bush/McCain philosophy of assuming the companies will automatically choose the right course.
3. Iraq/National Security. Here McCain has criticized Rumsfeld for not being resolute enough with troops, but McCain has steadfastly adopted the Bush mantra that Iraq == War on Terror. McCain has adopted the neocon viewpoint that if we plant an American Democracy in the middle east all the other countries will follow suit. Obama, on the other hand, has consistently stated that Iraq != War on Terror. Al Quaeda == War on Terror and we took our eyes off of them and didn't finish the business. Obama sees diplomacy as a first course and war as last course. He sees the Middle East as it truly is, which is a mixture of cultures with centuries long conflicts that won't be cured by just implanting American democracy. It didn't work with Great Britian and France with there colonialism and implanting parlimentary governments. It won't work for the US.
4. Environment. This is probably one of the few areas where McCain has actually deviated much from the Bush doctrine and is closer to Obama than Bush. Given that, McCain still only gets a handful of the environmental issues, mainly Western US issues. For example, he had no idea that he voted against the Everglades restoration, which will probably hurt him in Florida, but not as much as the left-side pundits may hope for.
5. Veterans - You would think that this would be a slam dunk issue for McCain, yet why, then is he steadfastly carrying the Bush administration's torch and not supporting Webb's GI Bill? Here is a plain example where McCain has moved to the Bush position, instead of his long history of supporting Veterans. The McCain of 2000 would have been a co-signer of Webb's bill along with Chuck Hagel, who gets that the issue is bi-partisan. Obama fully supports Webb's bill.
There are several more that I may go on with in a future post. This is just a start. In summary, I would agree that McCain of 2000 would not have been a third Bush term, but McCain of 2008 has moved so many positions to match the President, the comparison is valid.
OBTW, I do not disagree that Obama does have conservative oriented positions that match up to the Presidents. He didn't highlight them too much in the primaries for good reason, but they will come out in the general. For example, he does support school vouchers and merit pay for teachers. The only difference on the latter item is he wouldn't tie the pay to test scores alone. Test scores would be one measure along with continuing education gained, and classroom performance rating.
Posted by: tc on June 10, 2008 07:37 AMThe above was written with tongue firmly planted in cheek.
Posted by: tc on June 10, 2008 07:59 AM"McCain has revised his fiscal policy from 2000 to accept Bush's position on the high income tax cuts"
That is false. Nothing at all was revised. Obama knows this, and he is lying. McCain's position has ALWAYS been to NOT RAISE TAXES, even if he was against cutting them in the first place. "Letting the tax cuts expire" would be, of course, an increase in taxes from what they are now, therefore McCain is against it.
There is a real fiscal principle here, even recognized by the CBO: when we cut taxes, it boosts the economy. But the effect wears off. Similarly, when you increase taxes -- which is what this does, obviously -- it slows the economy. Eventually the effect will wear off, but EVEN IF you thought that we should do it, NOW would be obviously a bad time for it. McCain, for good reason, thinks we simply shouldn't do it, and he thought the same thing in 2000, and long before.
So please stop repeating the false statement that this has been change in policy for McCain. It is a complete fabrication. I am going to assume you don't know it's a lie you're repeating, but it certainly is.
Now, back to the point: yes, Obama wants to increase taxes on the rich at a time of slow economy. This does not help your case against McCain, because this would NECESSARILY result in a negative effect on us workers, as investment and expansion slow down.
So chalk one up for McCain's side. Next.
"McCain sides with Bush with regards to the Oil industry (pooh-pooh's idea of windfall profit tax). Obama in contrast calls for a windfall profit tax. So, on this issue, there is a difference."
Yep. And again, McCain wins this issue. Obama is terribly two-faced here: he opposes a gas tax holiday because, he says, the price is set by the law of supply and demand so a holiday on the gas tax will only put money into the oil companies' pockets instead of the government. Makes sense. But then why would you attack the oil companies by punishing them with a tax for something that you yourself admit isn't their fault: high prices?
Anf the fact is, of course, that many Americans BENEFIT from these profits, through pensions and so on. And it won't decrease the cost of gas, so it is just theft from the gas companies and the people who rely on them -- including millions of retirees (and those soon to be retiring) -- for the sake of meaningless symbolism.
Now, since McCain does support the silly gas tax holiday, I'll call this one a draw. Next.
"The key difference is government leading by setting the direction instead of the Bush/McCain philosophy of assuming the companies will automatically choose the right course."
Nope. This is what the left SAYS, but they don't actually believe it. I recently heard a debate a year or so ago between Kerry and Gingrich on global warming. Kerry -- not your best representative on the left, I might add, but still -- basically argued that. You can't trust CORPORATIONS! They got us INTO this mess! And as proof that we should have government do it because we can't trust corporations, he cited the fact that ... CEOs at companies like GE want government to do it.
Yeah, scratch your head over that one as long as it takes. I'm losing hair, I've been scratching for so long.
"McCain has criticized Rumsfeld for not being resolute enough with troops, but McCain has steadfastly adopted the Bush mantra that Iraq == War on Terror."
Yes, something many of us still agree with -- including myself, and I am quite confident I could, if not win that argument, bring it to a draw with you or anyone you wish, but I won't do so at this time -- and something that a majority of Democrats agreed with back when it was popular to do so. Granted, Obama didn't, but maybe this is because he is just generally a leftist antiwar radical. I am not sure that he is, but all signs point to Yes on that one.
"Obama sees diplomacy as a first course and war as last course."
Everyone does. This IS NOT a difference. You are incorrect. The difference is whether we saw the situation in Iraq at the point of the "last course." That is the only difference here (as I've maintained since before the war began!).
"He sees the Middle East as it truly is, which is a mixture of cultures with centuries long conflicts that won't be cured by just implanting American democracy."
Also not a difference with McCain. Simply false.
War being a separate issue, I am not prepared to give a point either way. I give you -1 points for misrepresenting McCain as being in favor of war as something other than a last option, and as believing that we can magically cure the Middle East with American democracy.
"This is probably one of the few areas where McCain has actually deviated much from the Bush doctrine and is closer to Obama than Bush. Given that, McCain still only gets a handful of the environmental issues, mainly Western US issues."
Yeah, again, the problem for you is that McCain balances environment with practicality, which is what MOST AMERICANS do. So this isn't a winner for Obama.
"Veterans - You would think that this would be a slam dunk issue for McCain"
Absolutely.
"yet why, then is he steadfastly carrying the Bush administration's torch and not supporting Webb's GI Bill?"
That's a lie. He is opposing the bill BECAUSE IT IS A DAMNED STUPID BILL.
"Here is a plain example where McCain has moved to the Bush position, instead of his long history of supporting Veterans."
False. He is opposing the bill BECAUSE IT IS A DAMNED STUPID BILL. He does not historically vote for every bill that says "this is for veterans." Mindless people -- like many Democrats in Congress -- do that. He actually looks at whether the bill is good or bad.
"The McCain of 2000 would have been a co-signer of Webb's bill"
Simply false. There is no way in hell that the McCain of 2000, who was as fiscally conservative then as ever, would have been for this stupid and expensive bill.
"In summary, I would agree that McCain of 2000 would not have been a third Bush term, but McCain of 2008 has moved so many positions to match the President, the comparison is valid."
Also false. You have not given a single example of McCain changing since 2000.
Is this the only way the Democrats can win ... to tell lies?
Posted by: pudge on June 10, 2008 08:38 AMNow, on with rebuttals to your points.
1. Upper Class Bush Tax Cuts - McCain opposed them in 2001 due to the fact that they weren't paid for elsewhere and would increase the deficit (see quotes from McCain from that time period). This fit with his fiscal conservative personality of 2000 campaign. McCain today supports the tax cuts under the supposed red herring that letting a law carry through would be a tax increase. Additionally, McCain has stated during the primaries that he now thinks that cutting taxes for the wealthy does increase revenue (contrary to his argument in 2001 that the projected revenues would not cover the tax cuts). On the red herring, there is no evidence over the long term (not short-term sell-off of assets scenario that supply-siders want to quote) that tax cuts to the weathly increase revenues long term. The only argument one could make is tax increases may or may not decrease revenue depending on liquidity of assets in the group being targeted. The problem is long term all the tax cuts do is change asset allocations, but they don't trickle down. The proof is the increasing gap in income between the very wealthy and middle class. Middle class income (in inflation adjusted dollars) has declined over the past seven years. With regards to the tax increase, you are wrong, and so is McCain. The tax cut was not permanent. So, to say letting the bill carry through is a tax increase is technically incorrect. The people who originally voted for the bill to have an expiration were the ones who voted for taxes to go back to their previous level. McCain didn't vote for it and neither did Obama. Now, however, McCain stated he has been enlightened (by the Bushites) and would have voted for the original bill. Therefore, it is McCain, paradoxically, that would have voted for what you call a "tax increase." Obama's position is a fiscally conservative one on this point, in the fact that he is not interferring with the original bill's intent. Plus, it is well documented, that the long term effects of the tax cuts were a temporary bump in short term revenue followed by a long term increase of the deficit. The increasing deficit puts strains on borrowing and thus has an overall effect on the value of the dollar. The falling dollar is a contributor to the higher oil prices. It is Bush's economic plan that has got us in the mess that we are today. Now, McCain has stated he wants to go even farther than Bush.
You also state that increasing taxes on the rich, which I have argued is not correct since Barack is letting the status quo of the existing law continue, would have negative effect on workers. I would like to see you prove that one. I am sure there are some voodoo economic mirrors that you can twist around, like Bush (GW) has. It doesn't make it true. The biggest "jolt" to get economy going is to put money in hands of the middle-class that will spend it. The rich won't spend it on everyday household goods. It does nothing to increase the demand for goods. Without demand, it doesn't matter how much capital the rich have to invest. They will do what they are currently doing, which is invest it overseas, where there is demand. The problem with the economy is not on the supply side of capital, it is on the demand side. The middle class can't afford to buy more goods. This is why Obama's call for middle-class tax relief and an additional stimulus package for the middle-class has a lot more immediate impact. It increase the available money for the middle class which can increase demand. With increased demand, the investment dollars of the rich would move back to targeting US industries, not foriegn industries.
Regarding your quoting Kerry: Yes, Kerry supports Obama, but Kerry's position != Obama's. Obama supports investment in green industries, directly or indirectly (tax incentives), plus setting benchmarks, and implementing some regulation to guide industry. Industry itself will put is dollars where there is return on capital. It is the government's role to put the incentive in place to focus industry to the country's long term goals (i.e., the marketplace will follow demand and will not create it).
Iraq == War on Terror. I believe you stated that you agree with this. I disagree (suprise). This is an invention of the Bush Administration. It is the fundamental reason for McCain == Bush III argument. The rest of the items one could argue how much McCain has shifted or not shifted positions. This one, however, there is no argument. McCain is in lockstep with this administration. You want to know why the Democrats use the Bush III argument, you can look no farther than McCain's stance on Iraq. Bush got us into the mess for no good reason, in fact a false reason (as we learn more and more each passing day). McCain wants to continue this foolish dream. You may think you are right on this issue, the American public disagrees (why do you think Bush's ratings are so low). History will be the ultimate judge. There is no basis in history where the neocon vision of nation building via American Democracy would be successfull. It is a neocon think-tank philosophy that has no basis in fact or history. It is no better than Nixon's support for Central and South American dictators to counter the threat of Marxism in South America. Where did it end up? We have a marxist oriented dictator in Nicoragua (and other countries?). Sadaam Hussien may have cheerleaded the 9/11 terrorist due to his hatred for the US, but he was not involved with the attack. This has been gone over several times by a couple of bipartisan commissions. Iraq had no involvement with 9/11. They didn't have involvement with Somolia, or attack on the USS Cole, either. Iraq did not have involvement with the first Trade Center attacks. These were all carried out by Al Quaeda, which has its basis, most closely with the former Egyptian terrorist group that assasinated Sadat. There goal is radically controlled muslim governments (like the Taliban) to run the Middle East countries and attack those who support the moderate governments currently in place (the US being prime supporter). Sadaam, while a brutal dictator, did have a modern Islamic society, which was an afront to these groups. They also didn't care for the Saudi Royals, who ousted Osama Bin Laden. We took our eyes off who attacked us. Please tell me how Iraq == War on Terrorism. I would probably enjoy the fiction.
On Webb GI Bill - I disagree that it is a "stupid" bill. I don't believe McCain has called it this. The argument over cost is ludicrious. If this is your argument, then you lose on this merit. We spend more in a couple hours of war in Iraq than the bill would cost per year. Do you know what the costs per year even are, or have you just assumed this from the Bush talking points? No, Bush and McCain may state other red herrings, but there basic argument against the bill is that the veterans may actually take advantage of the bill and that they may not be able to recruit replacements (e.g., retention issue). For veterans that have sacrificed multiple tours to Iraq, and at a time when some branches are struggling to meet recruitment goals, this administration and McCain's response is "tough luck" and suck it up, you have a duty. You wonder why they are struggling with retention? The bill's main goal, which has sound merits, is to increase recruitement. It has been proven that the best recruitment tool is money, especially in the form of college education. Webb and Hagel are not "dummies." They are very experienced on this issue, as is McCain, which makes McCain's false arguments evey more laughable. If the Whitehouse supported the bill, you would see McCain tow the line and flip his support in an instance. He is only objecting to show his allegience to the Bush Whitehouse. His arguments are easily countered with facts. He has no basis for objecting to the bill. (Here is one take on the two falsehood arguments of cost and retention.)
Finally, you state I have not given a single example of McCain changing. This is untrue. Examples include McCains change of viewpoint on the tax cuts for the rich and his change of position on veterans as demonstrated by his not supporting the Webb-Hagel GI bill. Additionally, I stated examples of where McCain wants to carry on Bush Policy, the prime being Bush's neocon dream for Iraq and tying Iraq == War on Terror. It really doesn't matter whether you agree with me on these or not. Most likely we won't agree. What does matter is the mood of the American public. The American public is fed up with a war that was sold to them under false premises, they are fed up with the lack of regulation in the housing industry (blame both Clinton and Bush on this one), and the rising gas prices (soley Bush -- the chart on how much prices have increased under this administration is amazing). For McCain to continue Bush's policies with regard to Iraq, not wanting to put back in place some oversight and regulation in financial industry, and to continue GW's economic polices, is a recipe for disaster given the public's mood.
Posted by: tc on June 10, 2008 10:06 AMPlease, I can't tell if you are lying, or if you honestly believe that McCain has changed on tax cuts. Either way, you are wrong, and you are TELLING a lie, whether you know it or not, and you should stop digging the hole.
It's a similar to how many people feel about the Iraq invasion. They were against going in, but once we invaded, they are for staying until Iraq is stable enough to handle security without us. McCain was against the tax cuts, but once they are made, he is for keeping them. Saying his position has changed IS A LIE.
"McCain today supports the tax cuts under the supposed red herring that letting a law carry through would be a tax increase."
It is not a red herring. Perhaps you do not know what "red herring" means: it means to introduce something as support for your argument that has nothing to do with your argument. But it is an undisputable fact that "letting a law carry through," in this case, would raise taxes. And I already showed, and you did not rebut in any way, the argument that raising taxes is bad for the economy.
"Additionally, McCain has stated during the primaries that he now thinks that cutting taxes for the wealthy does increase revenue (contrary to his argument in 2001 that the projected revenues would not cover the tax cuts)."
Nope, you are wrong. It is both. It DOES increase revenue, in the short run, but it doesn't cover it in the long run. The CBO predicted that early in Bush's first term, and they were right. So for short-term benefit to the economy, cutting taxes is almost always good. And for short-term HARM to the economy, raising taxes does the job, which is why he is against it.
"On the red herring"
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"there is no evidence over the long term (not short-term sell-off of assets scenario that supply-siders want to quote) that tax cuts to the weathly increase revenues long term"
While McCain never introduced a red herring, you did just now introduce a straw man, since you've not entered any evidence that McCain ever said that revenues would be increased over the long term (although there is such evidence, depending on how the cuts are made, but it doesn't matter since you haven't show McCain make that argument).
"The only argument one could make is tax increases may or may not decrease revenue depending on liquidity of assets in the group being targeted."
You mean the argument that I DID MAKE in my last post, that you've pretended doesn't exist?
"The problem is long term all the tax cuts do is change asset allocations, but they don't trickle down."
False.
"The proof is the increasing gap in income between the very wealthy and middle class."
Nope, you are comitting another straw man fallacy. "Trickle-down" economics DOES NOT mean "if the rich get a ton richer, they will increase the salaries of everyone working for them." "Trickle-down" is about creating jobs and opportunities through investment, and raising the standard of living for everyone, which is exactly what happened. The "income gap" not only does not prove anything about whether "trickle-down" economics works, but it is actually largely unrelated to "trickle-down" economics at all.
"Middle class income (in inflation adjusted dollars) has declined over the past seven years."
Yes, but ONLY because of energy prices. Without energy prices, real income would have increased. I am not saying this makes it OK, of course, just making the point that the decrease in real income has NOTHING to do with "trickle-down" economics.
"With regards to the tax increase, you are wrong, and so is McCain. The tax cut was not permanent. So, to say letting the bill carry through is a tax increase is technically incorrect."
Please don't be a COMPLETE IDIOT.
Please.
Try.
If my taxes are at one level, and then they go to a higher level, THAT IS A TAX INCREASE. It DOES NOT MATTER WHY my taxes are going up, the fact that they are going up means MY TAXES ARE INCREASING. Say whatever you want to about why it is the way it is, but do not lie and say it is not a tax increase.
"Plus, it is well documented, that the long term effects of the tax cuts were a temporary bump in short term revenue followed by a long term increase of the deficit. The increasing deficit puts strains on borrowing and thus has an overall effect on the value of the dollar. The falling dollar is a contributor to the higher oil prices. It is Bush's economic plan that has got us in the mess that we are today. Now, McCain has stated he wants to go even farther than Bush."
You are WAY off-base here. The weakened dollar is caused almost entirely by a huge and mounting trade deficit that preexisted Bush. Yes, the deficit plays a role, in that it contributes to our debt, but even if we maintained a level debt since Bush took office, it wouldn't have made a difference. Further, Bush has ALL ALONG wanted to keep the tax cuts permanent, so you are lying when you say McCain wants to go "even farther than Bush."
"You also state that increasing taxes on the rich ... would have negative effect on workers. I would like to see you prove that one."
Easy. Not sure why you can't see it. My own company pays a very high percentage of my health insurance. It would not be able to do so without private investment. Private investment would decrease if taxes increased. This happens all the time, all across the country. This is how it works.
"The biggest "jolt" to get economy going is to put money in hands of the middle-class that will spend it."
Yes, fine, I get a small tax cut from Obama. I am all for that. But when increases taxes on the wealthy, I will have to pay THOUSANDS more PER YEAR out of pocket for health care. Literally.
Seriously, you're being incredibly stupid here. You are telling a lie that McCain's view on taxes has changed, you are telling a lie that our taxes increasing is not a tax increase, and you are telling a lie that McCain wants to go farther than Bush.
Yes, but I am just pointing out the fact that when people say we can't trust corporations, they are lying, because then they use corporations to back up THEIR view. Obama is no different on that score.
You don't know what you are talking about, sadly, but as I said above, I won't discuss it now. Please read more carefully next time.
"On Webb GI Bill - I disagree that it is a "stupid" bill."
You're wrong. It is an extremely stupid bill.
"The argument over cost is ludicrious. ... We spend more in a couple hours of war in Iraq than the bill would cost per year."
False. You don't know what you're talking about. Even the most liberal estimates of the war in Iraq are $0.33b per day, and this bill will cost $5.1b a year over 10 years. The most liberal estimates therefore mean that it would take half a month of war per year for 10 years -- or five months of war -- to cover the cost of the bill.
But even if it WERE only "a couple of hours," that doesn't mean jack squat. What matters is whether the money we are spending is being spent wisely, and this money is not.
The main stupidity of the bill is that it is subsidizing business. Higher ed is a business. It costs pennies to add an additional student (not counting room, board, food, materials, of course), so why are we, the people, paying these businesses tens of thousands of dollars?
What SHOULD happen here is that we should go to these schools and tell them that they are going to give FREE tuition to returning vets (up to, perhaps, a certain percentage of their class size), and if they don't, we're going to take away their federal aid. And we can surely find charities and other veterans groups to help cover room/board/food costs where necessary.
We can solve this problem without $51b over 10 years. That is why this is an extremely stupid bill. It's typical Democratic stupidity, just like on health care: instead of trying to address the problem of high costs by looking for ways to lower those costs, you just take the peoples' money and PAY the higher cost!
Side note: even if we couldn't do it for a LOT less money, it would be a stupid bill, because a college education isn't worth what you pay for it anyway, for the overwhelming majority of people who go to college. Out of all seven kids and spouses in my family, I am the LEAST educated, with "only" a single bachelor's degree, plus a minor. Most have an advanced degree, a master's or doctorate. My family has a lot of experience with higher ed, and I say most of it was wasted time and money.
You could take the money spent on college and use it to simply live, not work, and study on your own for four years, and you will be much better off, if you're diligent enough in learning. You just won't have a crummy little piece of paper marking your accomplishments.
"Webb and Hagel are not "dummies.""
Yes, they are. Or they think we are. They are paying out tens of thousands of dollars to subsidize private businesses when we already have the means to force them to do it for free, at no significant cost to them.
"If the Whitehouse supported the bill, you would see McCain tow the line and flip his support in an instance."
You're a damned liar, tc, and frankly, that you keep telling lies makes me disinclined to want to have any more discussions with you. You have not given a SINGLE EXAMPLE of a change by McCain on ANY policy since 2000, let alone a change just because Bush has a particular view. Not a single one. And yet you make such an allegation that you know what he would do if Bush had a different position, despite NO history of it AT ALL?
"One more "flip" of McCain of old. McCain now has come out support Bush policy of getting rid of estate tax."
No, instead you've only pointed out how McCain's rhetoric does not always match his actions. Can you find a SINGLE example of McCain EVER voting in favor of the estate tax? Because you quote 2006, but I have votes going back to 2000 that show him voting to permanently phase out the estate tax.
Further, you are continuing to LIE by saying that any change by McCain is because of Bush's position, when there is NO EVIDENCE to support that. Indeed, what seems clear is that his rhetoric changed only because he wanted to appeal more to conservatives.
Please stop lying. It doesn't become you at all. I gave Obama's views a fair shake, as you well know. We disagreed some, but I was very fair. But you're just lying about McCain.
You state, that I am "lying" about McCain changing position on taxes. The "flop" on the tax cut is well documented. Heck, Romney and others already did this research in the primary. I provided additional evidence in post 17. McCain has changed his position on the Estate Tax. You are focusing on one specific aspect about McCain (consistency of not voting for tax increases), but ignore the overall position. McCain was against the Bush tax cuts in 2000 for very good reasons. Now, he is for them. Just like he was against eliminating the Estate Tax in 2006, but now has "flopped" on this. His 2006 stance (i.e., adjust for inflation) is the correct stance in my opinion.
You go on to show your colors on Supply Side economics further in the post. Let's face it, you are biased for Supply Side. I am biased against it. My bias against it is based on the fact that I have seen no evidence where it works. Here is one brief commentary regarding the myopic viewpoint of supply siders. They fail to see the economy as global. They and you fail to see that the investment is not going into the US Economy, but in foreign investments.
You state that Energy prices are the cause for income gap. You may want to check here. It isn't energy prices, its wages. Middle class wages have stagnated, while the top end wages soar. You may also want to check out this chart and see how much energy has only soared these past few years.
Further down in your initial response, you state "If my taxes are at one level, and then they go to a higher level, THAT IS A TAX INCREASE. It DOES NOT MATTER WHY my taxes are going up, the fact that they are going up means MY TAXES ARE INCREASING. Say whatever you want to about why it is the way it is, but do not lie and say it is not a tax increase."
I doubt that under Obama or McCain that "your" taxes will go up, but then again maybe you make so much more money than the average person, I could be wrong. The bottom line is the bill only proposed temporary tax reductions. If you have a complaint, it is against Bush and the authors of the bill. Obama was not in the Senate at that time. He didn't "vote" or propose this "tax increase" as you call it. OBTW, here was the Bush plan. As you can see, it was people who earned over $297,350 AGI, who fell into the marginal rate of 39.6%. Obama has proposed to maintain the lower rates and only let the top rate return (possibly top two rates). This is no impact to 96.5% of the public. Only 3.5% of the population make more than $250K.
Moving on, you state "You are WAY off-base here. The weakened dollar is caused almost entirely by a huge and mounting trade deficit that preexisted Bush. Yes, the deficit plays a role, in that it contributes to our debt, but even if we maintained a level debt since Bush took office, it wouldn't have made a difference. Further, Bush has ALL ALONG wanted to keep the tax cuts permanent, so you are lying when you say McCain wants to go "even farther than Bush."
Um, Pudge, Bush inherited a Budget surplus when he took office. Remember? You may also want to look at this chart to see the dollar's slide in just the last couple of years. It may be related to deficits, but it is Bush's deficits, not preexisting deficits. The major contributor to Bush's deficits is his tax cuts.
Moving on, you state "Yes, fine, I get a small tax cut from Obama. I am all for that. But when increases taxes on the wealthy, I will have to pay THOUSANDS more PER YEAR out of pocket for health care. Literally." Let's see, you are now equating health care costs = taxes. Not exactly the same. Some questions, assuming you currently pay for health care, how much has health care costs risen the past several years? How much has benefits been cut, co-payments increased, and other restrictions been added? I don't know about you, but health care has been going downhill without government's help. Do you really think insurance companies are not going to continue this trend? What's to change them? I have news for you, health care will get more expensive w/o any correlation with taxes, unless something is done about it. What I also know is that the FEHB (Federal Employees Heatlh Benefit) plan, which Obama has stated as the model of what he wants to work towards for everyone, is less expensive than the State's own plan and most all private company plans. It also has better coverage. If the Federal Government can manage health benefits for hundreds of thousands of employees better than private companies, then I will bet on Obama's plan over the McCain's any day.
In your follow-on post, you state with regards to the Webb GI bill, "The main stupidity of the bill is that it is subsidizing business. Higher ed is a business. It costs pennies to add an additional student (not counting room, board, food, materials, of course), so why are we, the people, paying these businesses tens of thousands of dollars?"
So, you are stating that Veterans should not get any college benefits. You are stating that we should eliminate the benefits enacted since WWII. You are stating we should eliminate ROTC payments, and payments like the Navy has done for year to college recruits that pays them monthly for college, even prior to their start of service. Is this what you are stating? For go, for a moment, the larger question of government funding of education, and instead focusing on just Veterans. Are you really stating that the Veterans who served this country don't deserve something in return? Do you really think one would continue to get new recruits without incentives like potential college education? What are you trying to say? I can't believe you are that cold to Veterans. Even the President and McCain aren't arguing that paying the costs of college for veterans who served this country should be eliminated. You are on a windy corner by yourself on this one.
The government "subsidizes" businesses everyday (e.g., roads, utilities, infrastructure, regulatory control, tax incentives, etc.). I assume, in your world, it would be up to each employer to educate their workforce. Education, in general, is a huge "subsidy" for businesses and the community in general. It provides an educated work force so that employers don't have to spend extra time and money training workers. It provides a knowledgable community that can converse/communicate (hopefully) that benefits the exchange of goods and services.
On the costs, here is the Department of Defense's 2009 President's budget, for just Personnel, not all the other defense related expenditures. By your figures, Webb's bill would cost $5.1B per year. On page 18 of the budget (page 24 in the PDF document), Military personnel costs for 2009 (per President's budget) is $125.2B. Therefore, what we are talking about is 4% additional for personal costs. If you go here, you will a summary of the overall DOD budget. The Direct Budget total for 2007 is $516B. What McCain and Bush are squabbling over is 1% of the budget. Heck, go here and you see that the Navy just extended NMCI for $1B per year, and it has been a marginal system. It at least doubled, the IT costs at the Shipyard. When you start arguing that $5B is a lot, you need to understand the overall scope. It is pittance to the overall defense budget and the country's budget. Further, McCain's buddy, Linsey Graham's, alternative plan is pegged at $38M, so what they are really arguing over is only $1.3B per year. You are right it is stupid. It is stupid to use cost as a reason for opposing the bill.
Finally, you again bring up the "lying" slur when referring to John McCain and is "flop" on Death Tax. You state, "Can you find a SINGLE example of McCain EVER voting in favor of the estate tax?"
Gee, that wasn't hard (see here).
Pudge, I expect better responses from you.
Posted by: tc on June 10, 2008 03:34 PMFirst off, you use the term "lie" a bunch.
You tell lies a bit much.
You may not agree with my stances, but they are not "lies."
Yes, they are.
You state, that I am "lying" about McCain changing position on taxes.
Correct.
The "flop" on the tax cut is well documented.
Please, no B.S. Rebut my argument, don't simply state that other people disagree with me. You must argue, to prove your point, that McCain's position on the tax cuts, when he voted against them, was that they SHOULD be allowed to expire. You have not provided ANY evidence of this (probably since none exists, because you're telling a lie).
McCain has changed his position on the Estate Tax.
Shrug. Show me a single vote where he voted in favor of the Estate Tax. Just one. Not a speech, a vote. Actions speak louder than words.
You are focusing on one specific aspect about McCain (consistency of not voting for tax increases), but ignore the overall position.
No, in fact, that is what YOU are doing: you are ignoring his actual overall position and falsely stating that he changed it.
McCain was against the Bush tax cuts in 2000 for very good reasons. Now, he is for them.
You're wrong, of course. He was against MAKING the cuts, but was never against REMOVING the cuts/INCREASING taxes. You're lying again.
You go on to show your colors on Supply Side economics further in the post. Let's face it, you are biased for Supply Side.
I am biased for freedom. But I am not going to debate economics with you, we are here to discuss McCain's position, and I am just pointing out the fact that Obama's opposition of, and McCain's favor of, certain relatively small supply-side policies is not going to be a winner for Obama. The best he can hope for is a draw, and even that is a longshot.
You state that Energy prices are the cause for income gap.
False. I said energy prices are the cause of the loss of real income. Please read what I wrote again. You said real income declined recently, and I said that without energy prices, they would have increased.
Further down in your initial response, you state "If my taxes are at one level, and then they go to a higher level, THAT IS A TAX INCREASE. It DOES NOT MATTER WHY my taxes are going up, the fact that they are going up means MY TAXES ARE INCREASING. Say whatever you want to about why it is the way it is, but do not lie and say it is not a tax increase."
None of what you say after this addresses my point: taxes going up means taxes are increasing. Taxes increasing means it is a tax increase. That is my point. Whether or not my taxes go up having nothing to do with it. What the current law says has nothing to do with it. This is simple language: if taxes are going up higher than they are now, then it means you are having a tax increase.
It DOES NOT MATTER to this point what the bill says. I know what the bill says, and it says that taxes will decrease, and then later increase. And McCain thinks we should not have that increasem and make the decreases permanent.
You're trying to make us think that because taxes are going back to what they WERE that therefore it is not an increase. But that is not how it works. It is an increase. To deny this is to deny the English language.
Um, Pudge, Bush inherited a Budget surplus when he took office. Remember?
More importantly, Bush inherited a RECESSION when he took office. Remember?
What happened is that the budget surplus was completely depleted by the recession that "officially" began in March 2001, long before any of Bush's economic policies were implemented. If any President is responsible for causing that recession (and I am not placing blame, but if you want to play that game, go ahead), obviously, it would have to be Clinton.
There was a very modest surplus in FY2001, which ended just after 9/11. Again, we were already in a recession that Bush inherited when we hit 9/11, and this is what ate away at the large surplus. Then 9/11 hit, and that took away hundreds of billions more, plunging us back into a deficit.
I am not saying Bush isn't to blame at all here -- clearly, some of what he did, most notably Iraq, exacerbated the lingering effects of recession -- but if Clinton had been in office in 2001, we still would have had a big deficit in FY2002 (and don't give me any crap about how Clinton would have avoided 9/11).
So now that we have history settled, back to the point at hand: again, I never said it was BUDGET deficit that Bush inherited that has caused the weakened dollar. I said it was TRADE deficit! Two completely different things. I bothered saying all the above because it is true that our debt (and therefore budget deficit) contribute to the weak dollar, but a. not as much as our trade deficit, and b. our debt was already so high when Bush took office (and because of the inherited recession and 9/11, it was not going to get any smaller) that the increased debt didn't make much difference.
Let's see, you are now equating health care costs = taxes.
No, I am not. You completely misunderstood my point. I am equating increased taxes with decreased investment with decreased capital for employers and decreased benefits for employees. Health care was just the example I used, but it could be anything, including, of course, salaries.
You asked for an example where higher taxes hurts workers. I gave you one.
health care has been going downhill without government's help
I wish that were the case. If that were true, then the solution would be simple: find, or start, a company that does it better. Unfortunately, it is largely BECAUSE of government's "help" (i.e., interference through massive regulation) that this doesn't happen.
So, you are stating that Veterans should not get any college benefits.
So, you are lying. Again. I never said any such thing. Is it impossible for you to debate honestly?
You are stating we should eliminate ROTC payments, and payments like the Navy has done for year to college recruits that pays them monthly for college, even prior to their start of service.
If you knew anything about how those programs work you would know that my arguments do not in any way apply to those programs.
Are you really stating that the Veterans who served this country don't deserve something in return?
Are you really saying you think I did state that?
Hm, let's try this: are you really beating your mother?
Do you really think one would continue to get new recruits without incentives like potential college education?
You're lying again. As is obvious, I actually said that government could and should get FREE TUITION for war vets, but do it without paying billions. And you somehow dishonestly warp that into a lack of college education incentive. Incredible.
I can't believe you are that cold to Veterans.
I can't believe you think my offer of free tuition to war vets is being "cold" to veterans.
What McCain and Bush are squabbling over is 1% of the budget
Again with the red herrings. How much it costs in relation to something else DOES NOT MATTER TO ME AT ALL. What matters is whether THIS money is being spent responsibly and appropriately. And it is not.
Finally, you again bring up the "lying" slur when referring to John McCain and is "flop" on Death Tax. You state, "Can you find a SINGLE example of McCain EVER voting in favor of the estate tax?"
Gee, that wasn't hard (see here).
Um, if it is not hard, why didn't you do it? Name the bill he voted on.
Pudge, I expect better responses from you.
I no longer expect good responses from you. You are still lying, repeatedly, and now you've extended your lies to ME, not just McCain.
I thought since you were so happy I was honest about Obama, you would be honest about McCain. I was obviously wrong.
Posted by: pudge on June 10, 2008 04:18 PMEven on issues on which McCain once claimed to differ from Bush, such as tax cuts for the rich and torture, he has come around to towing the party line.
Posted by: gwen on June 11, 2008 01:56 AMUm. Well let's start with the fact that President Bush DOES NOT VOTE. There is no such thing as a Congressman voting with Bush ANY percent of the time.
And I note that you did not address my many points about how it is a LIE to say McCain would be a third Bush term ... because you cannot. You are lying when you say McCain has changed on ANY position, ESPECIALLY on torture and taxes, where his views have not changed AT ALL.
tc:
You disappoint me in your continued lies. You did try to point out areas where McCain has changed his views, and setting aside the Estate Tax for the moment, you utterly failed to do so. I proved that McCain did not change on taxes; you ignored the proof, and simply repeated the lie.
I am not calling you a liar because you have a different point of view, I am calling you a liar because while you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, and it is a fact that McCain has, since long before Bush took office, OPPOSED taxes going up from whatever the current level happens to be (whether or not you call it a "tax increase"), and that therefore his position on the tax cuts has not changed.
Your saying that McCain has changed on tax cuts make as much sense as saying Obama was doing a terrorist fist jab, or that he is a secret Muslim. It not only has no serious evidence to back it up, but it ignores the facts we DO have.
I couldn't care less if you don't like being called a liar. It is far worse for you to be lying to me, than it is for me to be calling you a liar for it.
The "point of debate" is to discuss issues honestly, and until you can do that, you're the one with the problem.
McCain has changed position on the Bush tax cuts. It is well documented, both left and right media agree on this. There are speeches and statements from McCain in 2000 when he was running for President, and from when the votes for Bush's tax cuts. There are statements from McCain in the primaries and recently. The statements themselves demonstrate McCain's change of thought on the subject. Take for example, his 2000 SC debate statements, where he hit Bush with regards to the tax cuts Bush proposed in response to Steve Forbes hitting Bush on the subject. McCain states that Bush's tax cuts will were only for wealthy and would increase the deficit. Remember, there was not talk of recession and using the tax cuts for economic stimulus at this point of the campaign. Contrast that with this primary season where McCain now states that he agrees with the tax cuts for the wealthy. Why do you think people like Hannity and others hit McCain in the primaries over this subject?
McCain has also changed his position on the estate tax. This can be viewed by his past statements and votes, and his most recent statements. I provided you with the information on McCain's voting record on taxes (via American Tax Foundation's website, which listed the votes).
Choose what you wish to do with the evidence. I interpret it as being a change of position on taxes. Obviously, you only want to define tax positions on a narrow definition and thus do not see or agree with my broader view. We disagree. So be it. I am not "lying." I am stating my opinion based on the facts.
Posted by: tc on June 11, 2008 08:39 AMYou didn't prove to me in any way shape or form that McCain has changed on taxes.
Exactly: I proved he did NOT.
The reason is you want to narrow the argument to one specific phrase "voted for tax increases."
You're lying again. I just said in my last post that IT DOES NOT MATTER what you call it: if the taxes will be higher than they currently are, then HE IS AGAINST IT.
I disagree, however, with the premise that this statement alone reflects a candidates view on taxes.
It does not reflect it alone. However, it does reflect it. He is against taxes going higher than they currently are. This has always been his view, since long before his vote against the Bush tax cuts. HE HAS NOT CHANGED. YOU ARE LYING.
McCain has changed position on the Bush tax cuts. It is well documented
No, in fact, there is NO documentation whatsoever to support this. Any support for McCain changing on the Bush tax cuts MUST show that he said he would not support keeping them if they passed. Do you have any documentation of this? If not, then you're lying.
Take for example, his 2000 SC debate statements, where he hit Bush with regards to the tax cuts Bush proposed in response to Steve Forbes hitting Bush on the subject. McCain states that Bush's tax cuts will were only for wealthy and would increase the deficit.
Do you have any evidence that he said he would not support keeping them if they passed? If not, then you're lying when you say he changed.
Why do you think people like Hannity and others hit McCain in the primaries over this subject?
I never watch or listen to people like Hannity, and I don't give a damn what they say.
I provided you with the information on McCain's voting record on taxes (via American Tax Foundation's website, which listed the votes).
No, in fact, you did no such thing. You gave quotes, but not any actual votes. As I said last time, I await your pointing to actual votes on the actual estate tax.
I am not "lying."
Yes, you are.
I am stating my opinion based on the facts.
And you're lying about that, too. You are inventing facts that don't exist and ignoring facts that do.
The Pudge I know would be able to easily query/google McCain's SC debate comments. Note: There was no debate at that point on whether the tax cuts were to be temporary or permanent. Bush's proposal was for them to be permanent. This was in 2000 and the issue was not related to the stimulus package. Ergo, McCain was arguing against Bush's proposal for permanent tax cuts because they favored the rich. If you feel you can't "google" the results, here is a link for you.
I have done the heavy lifting for you Pudge, now it is your turn. I am not inventing anything. If you have other facts that you wish to provide, feel free. You have provided no links to information that collaborates your argument. I have provided many links. I can keep providing them all day, but it is pointless because you want to argue your opinion on the stance that I am the great Pudge and my word is fact. Provide the "proof" buddy.
Posted by: tc on June 11, 2008 09:18 AMThe Pudge I know would be able to see, for example, in the ATF link under the category McCain No Vote on Tax Cuts the specific vote and link to the Senate Roll Call of the vote.
I glanced at it, and I saw only one vote specifically mentioned, and it was on a nonbinding resolution, which isn't what I asked for. Do you have another vote? If not, then you can always just apologize.
The Pudge I know would be able to easily query/google McCain's SC debate comments.
You can't be that stupid. You just can't. I am asking you for evidence that McCain's view HAS CHANGED. That REQUIRES you to show he was IN FAVOR making taxes higher again, once they were lowered. It's a logical necessity. If you can't do that, then you are lying when you say he's changed.
Note: There was no debate at that point on whether the tax cuts were to be temporary or permanent.
Exactly. So you admit you're lying when you say he's changed his view, right?
Bush's proposal was for them to be permanent.
McCain could be against making them in the first place (as he was), but once they ARE made, is he for keeping them? THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION. EVERY other question does not support, in any way, your assertion that he changed. There is only one question to answer, and you've failed to answer it, and yet you continue to make your false assertions.
Ergo, you are lying.
I will keep in mind your viewpoint of what constitutes a change of opinion and a tax increase for future debates. Just as with your narrow interpretation on other issues and realize that one can not debate on the common understanding, but must take the Pudge filter of the issue to debate.
I disagree with you on this point. Period. I am moving on.
Posted by: tc on June 11, 2008 11:02 AMWith regards to Bush Tax Cuts, my point was McCain was on record to be against them, now he favors them, plus even more.
He was against ENACTING them, yes. He was NEVER against KEEPING them AFTER they had been enacted.
As for "even more," show me where he was ever against the tax cuts he is proposing.
Call it what you may. In my mind, it is a change of position.
You cannot back that up with ANY facts. You are dishonestly fudging the facts -- most obviously, in excluding the fact that McCain is against raising taxes from whatever the current level is. You are lying.
There most certainly is. The CQ Presidential support study I referenced is based on 'messages to Congress, news conference remarks and other public statements and documents.' If Bush denounces proposed legislation and threatens to veto it...is it not accurate to say that someone who votes against it is voting with Bush? Or are you just arguing semantics instead of substance?
"And I note that you did not address my many points about how it is a LIE to say McCain would be a third Bush term ... because you cannot. You are lying when you say McCain has changed on ANY position, ESPECIALLY on torture and taxes, where his views have not changed AT ALL."
Oh dear. For someone who supports such a disingenuous candidate you like to throw that "lie" word around a lot. Here is your proof on the torture flipflop:
In 2005 McCain proposed legislation banning torture and declared "we do not torture." More recently, McCain voted FOR the Military Commissions Act allowing torture in the form of waterboarding, and AGAINST the Intelligence Authorization Act which would disallow intelligence agencies from using interrogation techniques forbidden by the military.
As for your rationalization of his tax flip flop ("he was against ENACTING them, not KEEPING them") that is a laugh. If he thought enacting tax cuts for billionaires was a bad idea, how is is it not hypocritical to say that keeping them is a good idea? It's not the ENACTING of them that is good or bad, it is the effects of them, silly! You can split hairs all you want, but they're still hairs.
McCain has a long history of this kind of nonsense. Check out this video in which he admits flat out that he (among other things) supported flying the confederate flag against what he knew was right in order to further his political ambitions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk
There most certainly is.
Not an objective measurement, no, there is not. They base it on subjective measurements. Here's an example: was voting for McCain-Feingold voting with, or against, Bush? He said he was against it, then he signed it and defended it in court.
Note that I also reject similarly nonsensical measurements like "most liberal Senator." Even back in 2004, I said it was stupid for people to treat the National Journal rating of Kerry like it meant anything, and I say the same thing now about the rating of Obama. They are extremely subjective measurements about what is "liberal" or "conservative" and how much each vote should be weighted. This measurement of "voting with the President" makes just as little sense.
Or are you just arguing semantics instead of substance?
I am arguing that the "metric" you are using is devoid of substance.
Oh dear. For someone who supports such a disingenuous candidate you like to throw that "lie" word around a lot.
No, you're mistaken, I support McCain, not Obama.
Here is your proof on the torture flipflop:
Unfortunately for you, no.
In 2005 McCain proposed legislation banning torture and declared "we do not torture." More recently, McCain voted FOR the Military Commissions Act allowing torture in the form of waterboarding, and AGAINST the Intelligence Authorization Act which would disallow intelligence agencies from using interrogation techniques forbidden by the military.
Yeah, see, that's false. Well, it was true right up until the words "allowing torture." In fact, the MCA does not allow torture. There's really nothing more to say there. It doesn't. I have a copy here. Can you point out to me where it does what you say? I won't hold my breath.
As to the Intelligence Authorization Act, yes, he was against that provision. So? It is EXTREMELY dishonest for anyone (who knows the issue, anyway, such as Obama and his people) to say that just because he doesn't think the Army Field Manual is appropriate for applying to the CIA, that therefore he is IN FAVOR of torture by the CIA.
That is utter nonsense. It's like saying that because Obama believes that we should not try a sitting President in a criminal court, that therefore Obama thinks the President should be allowed to commit crimes, when really he is (obviously) saying that we should simply use a different system (i.e., impeachment).
In this case, the CIA is ALREADY prohibited from torturing, by law, and McCain helped pass legislation to that effect. However, McCain rightly believes that the CIA -- unlike the Army -- should not make public what specific methods it will and will not use, because then potential enemies can train for those methods. But whatever methods the CIA uses, they already MUST NOT be torture, by law. And therefore he is against using the Army Field Manual for the CIA.
The facts are clear: McCain has been a key figure in passing laws that outlaw torture for both the military and the CIA, and neither the MCA nor the Intelligence Authorization Act represent pro-torture views. I hope you simply did not understand the issues, and are not being dishonest. I hope that you really are ignorant here, and that you don't think it is OK to lie about McCain just because you disagree with him.
As for your rationalization of his tax flip flop ("he was against ENACTING them, not KEEPING them") that is a laugh.
Yeah, facts are funny. (?)
If he thought enacting tax cuts for billionaires was a bad idea, how is is it not hypocritical to say that keeping them is a good idea?
I'm sorry you're apparently incapable of understand the very straightforward logic that ENACTING a tax cut and REMOVING a tax cut are two different things that have different impacts on the economy, and therefore it is not at all unreasonable to be against enacting it AND against removing it once enacted.
Here's another analogy: let's say you tell someone you don't want them to shoot you in the leg. You really don't want that bullet in there. But they do it anyway. Now you are left with a choice of whether to remove the bullet from your leg, or leave it in there. It depends on the circumstances, but often the choice is made to leave it in there, as we saw in the recent Folklife shooting. More damage is done by removing it than just leaving it in, even though you didn't want it there in the first place.
Would you tell the shooting victim that since she thought getting a bullet put in her leg was a bad idea, that it is hypocritical for her to say that keeping the bullet in her leg is a good idea?
It's not the ENACTING of them that is good or bad, it is the effects of them, silly!
The effects of REMOVING the tax cut are very different than the effects of never having ENACTED them in the first place. Obviously. To equate the two is, quite clearly, logically fallacious.
Posted by: pudge on June 11, 2008 08:08 PMFuthermore, the point is that McCain is in step with Bush's policies and in that sense promising a kind of "third term," so regardless of the logical hoops you jump through making distinctions between "enacting" and "keeping" tax cuts, the fact remains that he is now lock-step with Bush on that issue.
Posted by: gwen on June 11, 2008 10:42 PMI suspect, though, that you probably do understand it. I know Obama does, and I know Obama is a liar when he says McCain has changed on the issue, because Obama knows it isn't true.
Futhermore, the point is that McCain is in step with Bush's policies and in that sense promising a kind of "third term"
Yes, this is the lie that you and the Obama people are telling. I confess to being incapable of that level of dishonesty, so, kudos to you for being able to do something I can't.
Anyway, I love the Republican habit of saying tax cuts for the rich are the answer, no matter what the economic situation. When there was a strong economy and a budget surplus after the Clinton years, they said "let's celebrate, rich people deserve tax breaks!" Then when the economy started crumbling and Bush turned the record surplus into a record defecit it was "rich people need tax breaks now to stimulate the economy!" Hahaha! Classic.
But I guess that's easy to put over on a base constituency that still thinks evolution is a lie made up by devil to test their faith and Saddam was behind 9/11. Come on, Pudge. The Republicans have had their time in power and they've screwed up economically, environmentally, militarily, and in just about every other way. This has been a presidency rife with corruption, incompetence, and cover-ups, a continuing great human and economic cost. Of course McCain is trying to distance himself from the disasterous current administration. But his vision is continued militarism, continued tax breaks for the wealthy, continued convoluted health care system based on insurance company profits, and continued indefinite war in Iraq (did you hear him say it's "not too important" when the troops come home?) So it is no "lie" to say McCain intends to continue Bush's policies, no matter how many times you call it that. And for you to rank it's disingenuity above even "terrorist fist bump" is itself about as disingenuous as it gets.
Posted by: gwen on June 12, 2008 03:25 AMCorrect. You are incapable of seeing a difference between two obviously very different things.
I think it was actually McCain who said he "never really understood economics."
Yes, this is yet another lie being told by the Democrats. He never said that.
Anyway, I love the Republican habit of saying tax cuts for the rich are the answer, no matter what the economic situation.
Yes, this too is another lie being told by the Democrats.
When there was a strong economy and a budget surplus after the Clinton years, they said "let's celebrate, rich people deserve tax breaks!" Then when the economy started crumbling and Bush turned the record surplus into a record defecit
Also a lie. In fact, there WAS NO strong economy after the Clinton years: we had NEGATIVE GDP in March 2001, one month after Bush took office, long before any economic policies of Bush could take effect. There is no debate: Bush inherited a weak economy. The downturn actually began about a year earlier, around March 2000, when the stock market started to weaken.
So, in fact, ALL the Bush tax cuts took place when we knew we were in a weak economy.
Nice try, but your lies won't work here.
The Republicans have had their time in power and they've screwed up economically, environmentally, militarily, and in just about every other way.
False on all counts. Again, the facts clearly show that Bush inherited a recession. The facts clearly show that the environment is better off than it was when he took office. I won't debate the military issue, because I don't have the time and it's a huge topic, but suffice it to say that I don't agree there, either.
This has been a presidency rife with corruption, incompetence, and cover-ups, a continuing great human and economic cost.
Not since LBJ, anyway.
Of course McCain is trying to distance himself from the disasterous current administration.
And of course the Democrats are doing their best to lie to try to link the two.
But his vision is continued militarism, continued tax breaks for the wealthy, continued convoluted health care system based on insurance company profits, and continued indefinite war in Iraq (did you hear him say it's "not too important" when the troops come home?)
You said "Iraq" twice. Or did you not know that McCain and Obama don't have significantly different military policies other than Iraq? Or are you just lying again? And, of course, you are lying about "indefinite war in Iraq": everyone with half a brain knows that he EXPLICITLY STATED that it is not imporant if the troops remain there AS LONG AS it is NOT in a state of active war.
As to health care, you're lying there, too: McCain wants to make a ton of changes to the health care system, just not the changes Obama wants to make.
It's as though all you can DO is to lie! You lie about Iraq, you lie about taxes, you lie about health care, you lie about the recession ... it's really amazing.
Making the Bush tax cuts permanent, attacking Iran, and staying ad infinitum in Iraq is exactly what Bush would try to do in a third term. That is exactly what McCain would try to do in his first term. Ergo, it would be a third term. Hell, McCain even said Cheney would be involved in his administration.
Under Obama's administration, which you find so Castroesque, everyone making $112k or lower per year would pay less in taxes than under McCain's plan.
So, grow up and learn to view the world through the crystal of Truth instead of the prism of your prejudices.
Posted by: Balls Fargas on June 12, 2008 11:16 AMMaking the Bush tax cuts permanent, attacking Iran, and staying ad infinitum in Iraq is exactly what Bush would try to do in a third term. That is exactly what McCain would try to do in his first term. Ergo, it would be a third term.
First, I never said McCain would do NOTHING like Bush. Obama will do a lot like Bush, too, obviously. So citing a few ways they are similar does not justify "third Bush term."
Second, most people agree with the permanent tax cuts. I'd love a debate on this, and we will get it.
Third, there is no evidence whatsoever, of any kind, that McCain intends to attack Iran. You're a liar.
Fourth, no one gives a damn -- except to try to score political points, or if you're an isolationist like Ron Paul, which Obama is not -- whether we are IN Iraq. McCain is right about that, and every honest person knows it. What matters is the CONDITIONS under which we are in Iraq, if we're there, and McCain and Obama agree on that point.
Hell, McCain even said Cheney would be involved in his administration.
You're lying again. You are misquoting him from 2006 (a long time ago), when he said he would WANT Cheney to serve, not that Cheney WOULD serve.
Under Obama's administration, which you find so Castroesque, everyone making $112k or lower per year would pay less in taxes than under McCain's plan.
That's obviously not true. The most obvious way in which it is not true is that Obama would keep the AMT, which hits people in the range you say, and McCain would not. Obama does want to "fix" the AMT, but has presented no plan that would show anyone that everyone in that income range would pay less than if it were abolished.
So, grow up and learn to view the world through the crystal of Truth instead of the prism of your prejudices.
See, that is what I am doing, and you are failing to do. You make up things about Iran, ignore the truth about Iraq, and thinking wishfully about Cheney.
Apparently you haven't seen McCain singing "Bomb Iran." Oh, just a joke, right? Yeah, let's ignore the constant saber-rattling and drumbeat for war with Iran. After all, it didn't amount to anything the last time, when we attacked Iraq...
Iran will almost certainly be attacked under a McCain administration. If you think McCain does not want to attack and probably use tactical nukes on Iran, you are deluded.
Then the poor soul said: "You're lying again. You are misquoting him from 2006 (a long time ago), when he said he would WANT Cheney to serve, not that Cheney WOULD serve."
Actually, sir, I didn't "quote" anything. What is the difference in wanting Cheney to serve and having him serve? None. Cute little semantic bait-and-switch attempt, but bad forensics and bad logic. It shows that McCain is a third Bush term because he is aligned with someone who has an EVEN WORSE approval rating than Bush and who is largely responsible for wrecking the rule of law and lying us into war, as well as for a failed energy and economic policy which has gas approaching $5/gal. Third term. You still haven't disproved it even in the slightest. Even if I agreed with Bush's policies, I would think of McCain as an extension of those policies--a third term.
Someone who has unsound politics said: "That's obviously not true. The most obvious way in which it is not true is that Obama would keep the AMT, which hits people in the range you say, and McCain would not. Obama does want to "fix" the AMT, but has presented no plan that would show anyone that everyone in that income range would pay less than if it were abolished."
In fact it's demonstrably true:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates_taxproposals_tpc/index.htm?cnn=yes
McCain's tax plan is naive and foolish. It is a continuation of the treasury raiding that has gone on under Bush. Example: Tax revenues fall to 16.8% of GDP under McCain. Under Bush's bloated government, government spending is 20% of the GDP today. That is a recipe for further still inflating the deficit, weakening the dollar, pushing inflation, and imposing a debt on future taxpayers. It is simply not sustainable or responsible economics. Plus, these cretins will continue deregulating every sector, and as we can see from the mortgage crisis, there is a price to be paid for letting corporations run roughshod over the public.
The fact is, neither Obama nor Clinton should have promised no raising taxes on the middle class. I am in the middle class, but I would rather pay a little more in taxes now to pay down the deficit than to ensure that we're China's bitch for the next couple decades.
Well, you may argue, he will shrink the government to where this is sustainable (let's forget about a surplus in revenue paying down our deficit). Perhaps he will. The problem with that idea is that outsourcing everything to the private sector is not serving us well. For example, Blackwater contractors get I think about 5 times as much as soldiers. And they often do a really shitty job, as when Halliburton had contaminated water with giardia and all other contaminants at a military base, or the many times when they ripped off the taxpayers.
So, the Neoconservative revolution in all its ugliness has led to predictable results. If you can think of a defense for them, then you are quite the mental gymnast.
We may not ever recover from the damage wrought in these few short years. Our economy is on the brink of recession if not depression, the dollar is weak as hell, a record surplus has been converted into a record deficit in a few short years, and most importantly 4000 soldiers are dead and many more maimed, not to mention untold thousands of civilians. We conquered the second largest oil reserve on the planet and gas prices went up. The incompetence and fundamental stupidity, greed, and criminality that McCain and his cohorts exhibit in their governance cannot be allowed to continue, and should in fact be prosecuted.
See that? It's called evidence. Intelligent people use it to come to conclusions and build arguments.
The record you are trying to defend is indefensible, so you call the opposition "Castroesque." You can't build a cogent argument as I have done because there really is no defense for your party's war and other crimes.
Posted by: Ball Fargas on June 12, 2008 02:22 PMApparently you haven't seen McCain singing "Bomb Iran." Oh, just a joke, right?
Um, yes. Yes, it is.
Yeah, let's ignore the constant saber-rattling and drumbeat for war with Iran.
If it existed, I wouldn't ignore it.
After all, it didn't amount to anything the last time, when we attacked Iraq...
Um, we actually said we were considering attacking Iraq preemptively, back in September 2002. Anyone who thinks that snuck up on us by March 2003 wasn't paying attention.
Iran will almost certainly be attacked under a McCain administration.
You're a liar.
Actually, sir, I didn't "quote" anything.
Ah, I gave you too much credit, then. You were just COMPLETELY making it up instead of merely fudging a quote. Gotcha.
What is the difference in wanting Cheney to serve and having him serve?
Um. They are completely different things. Especially considering the former was over two years ago.
You still haven't disproved it even in the slightest.
Sigh. You have it backward, as you people usually do. YOU have to prove YOUR claims. I don't have to disprove them. I have, however, disproved every supporting argument you've made.
In fact it's demonstrably true:
Wow. It is really funny when people provide evidence that disprove their own claims. Note that you claimed "everyone making $112k or lower per year would pay less in taxes than under McCain's plan," but that demonstration you provided only claimed that people making $112K or lower per year would ON AVERAGE benefit more under Obama's plan.
Sigh. You're terrible at this.
McCain's tax plan is naive and foolish. It is a continuation of the treasury raiding that has gone on under Bush.
Ummmmm. So you're aginst Obama's hundreds-of-billions in increased spending, and for McCain's spending cuts? Yeah, didn't think so.
Plus, these cretins will continue deregulating every sector, and as we can see from the mortgage crisis, there is a price to be paid for letting corporations run roughshod over the public.
Except, of course, that the problem is that housing was not deregulated ENOUGH, because the federal government provided incentives to mortgage companies to make risky loans, which they did. Oops on you.
The fact is, neither Obama nor Clinton should have promised no raising taxes on the middle class. I am in the middle class, but I would rather pay a little more in taxes now to pay down the deficit than to ensure that we're China's bitch for the next couple decades.
Yes, I agree. Obama should not have promised to not raise taxes on the middle class ... because then McCain would have won with 60 percent of the national vote.
Well, you may argue, he will shrink the government to where this is sustainable (let's forget about a surplus in revenue paying down our deficit).
First things first. I am actually not against even perhaps RAISING taxes in the future to pay down the debt, if necessary. But NOT UNTIL the deficit is eliminated WITHOUT doing so. It is easy to do: cut spending. The government has more than enough revenue for our needs. Stop directly subsidizing ... well, anything. Stop wasting money. Stop taking on state responsibilities. We could easily cut a few hundred billion dollars if we had the will to. And until we do, then I don't trust the government to pay down the debt with my money instead of spending it on new programs.
So, first things first.
The problem with that idea is that outsourcing everything to the private sector is not serving us well.
We are not doing that, so as it does not exist, it is not doing anyhting.
For example, Blackwater contractors get I think about 5 times as much as soldiers. And they often do a really shitty job
Have you been to Iraq? I have not. But I have good friends who have, and they say the Blackwater folks do a very good job. And as to cost, you may not know this, but in fact, NO ONE KNOWS whether a Blackwater contractor costs more than a soldier. We do not pay directly to train them, for their lifetime benefits, for their equipment costs. So yes, their direct cost is higher, but we don't know the total cost, as a study hasn't yet been done on it.
as when Halliburton had contaminated water with giardia and all other contaminants at a military base, or the many times when they ripped off the taxpayers.
Every time I've seen a "ripoff" story it was no different from any very large company. Shit happens. The overwhelming majority of the time, things get done well and for the right amount of money. The military itself has had just as many problems as the contractors (at least).
Our economy is on the brink of recession if not depression, the dollar is weak as hell
Recession is possible, but the causes are due to circumstances that long predate Bush: a majority of it is due to trade deficit, which was CAUSED in large part by a STRONG dollar. A weak dollar is good for us, though the transition is painful.
Business knows what is going on, which is why we have not, and will not likely, see any sort of collapse, or even significant contraction. It is going to be the job of the next President to avoid a collapse or contraction by encouraging domestic investment (which is easier with a weak dollar).
a record surplus has been converted into a record deficit in a few short years
Bush inherited a recession, in fact, and that alone, combined with 9/11, wiped out any surplus.
and most importantly 4000 soldiers are dead and many more maimed, not to mention untold thousands of civilians
Yes, and Bush was fully backed by Congress, including a Democratic majority in the Senate, which had the same intelligence Bush did. I am not trying to take blame away from Bush, just saying, the Democrats backed him up. Kerry, Edwards, and Mrs. Clinton all supported the invasion, including supporting it AFTER the invasion. Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, attacks Cheney for saying Iraq had growing nuke capabilities, but Rockefeller had the same intel and said the same thing.
To say that the Dems were not pushing for war is a lie. So please don't say that.
We conquered the second largest oil reserve on the planet and gas prices went up.
Yes, because contrary to the lies of the left, this was not an imperialist war to capture oil. We did not take it for ourselves. Maybe we should have, but we didn't.
The incompetence and fundamental stupidity, greed, and criminality that McCain and his cohorts exhibit in their governance cannot be allowed to continue, and should in fact be prosecuted.
You're a moron. You cannot rationally back up any of that.
See that? It's called evidence. Intelligent people use it to come to conclusions and build arguments.
Well no, it's not evidence, it's rhetoric. Please learn the difference.
The record you are trying to defend is indefensible
Shrug. Name one single thing I am trying to defend that is indefensible (psssst: you cannot).
so you call the opposition "Castroesque."
Um. Ummmmm. Um.
The reason why Obama is using "third Bush term" is because HE doesn't want to discuss the issues. You have it backward there.
You can't build a cogent argument as I have done because there really is no defense for your party's war and other crimes.
You didn't build an argument, you repeated lies and tried to create guilt by false innuendo.
The more you say, the more you seem deluded. You blame Bush's budget deficit on Clinton and say that it has nothing to do with tax cuts for the wealthy. Um, sorry but the deficit is spending minus revenue, so if Bush dramatically DECREASED the tax revenue and dramatically INCREASED government spending (which is exactly what he did) that creates deficit. It's a simple mathematical formula. It's not subjective. You're probably right that 9/11 contributed to the problem, but I'd say allowing the worst national security failure the country has ever seen while literally setting the record for vacation time and ignoring all warnings about the attack can be counted as another Bush policy failure. An unnecessary and perpetual war that costs a couple billion a week isn't helping either.
What's funny is that you can't seem to decide whether you want to keep defending Bush, or distance McCain from him. Don't feel too bad, a lot of Republicans are going through the same crisis right now, after seeing the tragic effects of years of Republican policies run unchecked: a crumbling economy, skyrocketing environmental crises, and hundreds of thousands of people dead (and counting) as the result of a war based on false pretenses and sold to the public with a dishonest propaganda campaign paid for by our own tax dollars. That's just not an opinion, that is now a matter of public record. But go ahead and scream "lie!" anyway. We've had enough of Republican policies. They are antiquated, discriminatory, invasive and absurd. We are trying to rescue our economy and repair our standing in the world while they aren't even ready to accept that evolution is real, Iraq's WMD were a hoax, and torture is wrong. Get out of the Dark Ages! Republicans have made us the laughing stock of the world.
Posted by: gwen on June 13, 2008 03:00 AM43. Ok I'm seeing the pattern. Just respond to everything with "you're lying!" You still haven't offered any evidence that McCain is significantly different than Bush on key issues (and no, a link to McCain's website is not evidence).
Shrug. What do you want evidence for? The fact that McCain NEVER SAID that he "never really understood economics"? It is, of course, impossible to prove he never said that, but YOU cannot provide evidence he DID say that.
As to the economic figures, for crying out loud, that's common knowledge: but if you need help, here it is.
And so on.
You blame Bush's budget deficit on Clinton
You're lying. I never said any such thing. I said he inherited the recession -- which is, of course, unquestionably true -- but not that the recession was Clinton's fault.
... and say that it has nothing to do with tax cuts for the wealthy.
Yes, correct, because we were in a deficit without the tax cuts. Look at this left-wing chart. It is THEIR estimate (and we can only have estimates, we can't know for certain) of the total fiscal impact of the tax cuts. Now look at this chart of the annual budget deficit/surplus. Note how the deficit in 2002 (-$158b) and following is $100b greater than the LIBERAL estimate of the revenue lost in the total 2001 tax cut (-$58b) (note that the FY2002 budget is funded primarily with 2001 taxes).
Which means that even without the tax cuts we still would have had a $100b deficit.
So yes, the deficit had nothing to do with the tax cut.
... I'd say allowing the worst national security failure the country has ever seen while literally setting the record for vacation time and ignoring all warnings about the attack can be counted as another Bush policy failure.
Yes, you would say that, because you are insane.
An unnecessary and perpetual war that costs a couple billion a week isn't helping either.
As I said in the post I linked to above, you can argue that Bush perhaps lengthened the recession, or forestalled the recovery, or certainly that he worsened the deficit. But you cannot argue that he created the recession or the deficit.
What's funny is that you can't seem to decide whether you want to keep defending Bush, or distance McCain from him.
No, I don't have that kind of trouble, because I am arguing truth. Unlike you, I don't need to try to decide how I want to spin the facts, I just say what they are.
the tragic effects of years of Republican policies run unchecked: a crumbling economy
A lie, of course. While Bush and the Republicans have not been blameless, the current economic problems are primarily due to problems with oil prices (primarily caused by increased demand overseas), and a weak dollar (primarily caused by a trade deficit problem that goes back to way before Bush's time, and even before the GOP controlled Congress).
skyrocketing environmental crises
Yeah, except you can't actually back this up. Under Bush we've seen a lot of species come out of endangerment; we've seen the air get cleaner; we've seen increased MPG standards for cars; and so on. While you may feel things have gotten more "urgent" because of some perceived increased danger, the environment has improved under Bush. I defy you to provide evidence to the contrary.
Maybe you think Bush hasn't done enough, and that's fine, but you try to make it sound like the environment has gotten worse under Bush. It hasn't. Oh, and just like I can't like to McCain's web site, you can't link to a left-wing web site to prove your case. Sorry, your rules.
and hundreds of thousands of people dead (and counting) as the result of a war based on false pretenses and sold to the public with a dishonest propaganda campaign paid for by our own tax dollars. That's just not an opinion, that is now a matter of public record.
Actually, no, you're lying, in fact. There is NO "public record" that there was a "dishonest propaganda campaign." If you're referring to the Senate Intelligence Committee reports, those are, quite obviously, partisan hit jobs. For example, Democrat Jay Rockefeller was chair of the Intel Committee when we invaded and had all the same evidence Cheney did, yet the report attacks Cheney for saying Iraq had increasing nuclear capabilities, but doesn't mention the fact that Rockefeller said the same thing.
If you want to attack Rockefeller, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and the rest -- who all had access to the intel -- in the same way you attack Bush for "false pretenses" and "a dishonest propaganda campaign paid for by our own tax dollars," fine. But if you want to give them a pass, then that's lying.
But go ahead and scream "lie!" anyway.
Shrug. If you lie, I call you on it.
We've had enough of Republican policies. They are antiquated, discriminatory, invasive and absurd.
Oh, try to fool someone else. Give me a SINGLE example of a discriminatory Republican policy, other than being against gay marriage. A single one. And I could give you TEN Democratic policies that are "invasive" for every ONE you come up with against the Republicans. And of course, "antiquated" and "absurd" are merely in the eyes of the beholder, and don't mean anything.
We are trying to rescue our economy and repair our standing in the world
Which is, of course, what McCain is going to do, and has far more ability to do than Obama.
... while they aren't even ready to accept that evolution is real, Iraq's WMD were a hoax, and torture is wrong.
Nice job: three lies in a row!
Get out of the Dark Ages!
No, that's my line. It's the Democrats who believe, fundamentally, that man needs a government to force him to do what he won't do himself. Democrats do not believe in freedom. Democrats believe in remaining in the Dark Ages.
Moving on...
Note how the deficit in 2002 (-$158b) and following is $100b greater than the LIBERAL estimate of the revenue lost in the total 2001 tax cut (-$58b)
Ok, so you're arguing that the tax cuts were only responsible for about $58 billion of the $158 billion. That would make the tax cuts responsible for MORE THAN A THIRD of the record-setting deficit, by the evidence you provided. Nice work.
...I'd say allowing the worst national security failure the country has ever seen while literally setting the record for vacation time and ignoring all warnings about the attack can be counted as another Bush policy failure.
Yes, you would say that, because you are insane.
I guess when you get tired of saying "you're lying" in the face of facts, you move on to "you're crazy!" Well, anything to keep from facing the truth I guess.
Unlike you, I don't need to try to decide how I want to spin the facts, I just say what they are.
Sure buddy, because saying McCain's policies are similar to Bush's is more ridiculous than calling a common African American hand gesture a "terrorist fist jab." That's right, I didn't forget your original premise.
If you want to attack Rockefeller, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, and the rest -- who all had access to the intel -- in the same way you attack Bush for "false pretenses" and "a dishonest propaganda campaign paid for by our own tax dollars," fine. But if you want to give them a pass, then that's lying.
Actually no, calling the propaganda campaign dishonest would not be lying unless Saddam really was cooperating with Al Qaeda and really did have WMD. Look, I don't give anyone a pass for their complicity in the unnecessary tragedy of the Iraq War, and that was a big factor in my supporting Kucinich and Obama over Clinton and Edwards. But if we're talking about share of the blame, surely you don't put those who actually devised and orchestrated the war and war propoganda on the same footing with those who merely fell for it and went along with supporting it.......do you???
Give me a SINGLE example of a discriminatory Republican policy, other than being against gay marriage
Actually they are consistently against equal rights for gays across the board, including legislation to protect gays from discrimination in the workplace.
Under Bush we've seen a lot of species come out of endangerment; we've seen the air get cleaner
First of all, choosing not to put animals on the endangered LIST doesn't make them not endangered. And you're cherrypicking evidence just like the Bush administration did leading up to the war; while it's true that there are areas where the air is cleaner, environmental pollution OVERALL has increased and Bush has consistently supported lowering emissions limits and other regulations on big business. The Bush administration even stopped my home state of California from enacting its own limits on auto emissions (as it also raids our state-legalized medical marijuana facilities). Remember that Bush wouldn't even admit that climate change was real until recently. He defunds solar energy while our dependence on oil goes up. What we need is not marginal local reductions, it is radical changes in policy.
We are trying to rescue our economy and repair our standing in the world
Which is, of course, what McCain is going to do, and has far more ability to do than Obama.
Oh please. McCain can't even get his Sunni and Shia straight. He told us the war would be over relatively quickly and we would be greeted as liberators. By contrast, Obama warned that invading Iraq was a bad idea that would get us stuck in the middle of sectarian conflict...now which candidate would you say has better judgement and a more accurate grasp on reality?
McCain tells us Iran is training Al Qaeda and sending them to Iraq, gets corrected, then repeats the same false statement the next day. He tells us it's safe for Americans to walk around freely in Baghdad. He repeatedly calls Prime Minister Putin the president of Germany. He tells us it doesn't matter when the troops are coming home. That's the guy who's going to rescue our foreign policy?
Democrats believe in remaining in the Dark Ages.
Right, when a third of the top Democratic primary candidates openly admit to not believing in evolution, you can tell me that. When Democrats list "the gay lifestyle" as one of the threats our country, you can tell me that.....still say "antiquated" and "absurd" don't mean anything?
Posted by: gwen on June 13, 2008 04:04 PMAND STILL, after all this thread...you have not offered any support for your claim that McCain's policies are markedly different than Bush's
First, you're lying again. I have done that many times in this thread.
Second, it is YOUR job to show that he is markedly the same as Bush, and you've not.
Let's put the idea that McCain is so different from Bush to bed right now with footage of McCain's OWN WORDS saying he's aligned with Bush on the keys issues.
Yes. And? What specifically do you have a problem with there? Talk ISSUES.
Ok, so you're arguing that the tax cuts were only responsible for about $58 billion of the $158 billion.
You're lying again. I said that was the most liberal estimate I could find.
That would make the tax cuts responsible for MORE THAN A THIRD of the record-setting deficit, by the evidence you provided. Nice work.
You're lying again. 2002 was not EVEN CLOSE to a "record-setting deficit." And still, the point is that YOU ARE WRONG that it caused the deficit.
If I don't find you saying something true soon, I am going to stop reading.
Sure buddy, because saying McCain's policies are similar to Bush's
You're lying again. This is not the claim I was attacking. The claim I was attacking is that McCain is running for a "third Bush term."
Actually no, calling the propaganda campaign dishonest would not be lying unless Saddam really was cooperating with Al Qaeda and really did have WMD.
You're lying again. It's not "dishonest" unless you can show INTENT to deceive: they had to KNOW those things.
that was a big factor in my supporting Kucinich
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
You support Kucinich, who -- bar none -- has supported more unconstitutional acts by Congress than ANY major party Presidential candidate in HISTORY?!
Sigh.
Actually they are consistently against equal rights for gays across the board, including legislation to protect gays from discrimination in the workplace.
You're lying again: being for equal rights -- which Republicans are -- does NOT AT ALL require one to be for anti-discrimination legislation.
I'm sorry, I am giving up on you. You are simply incapable of honesty.
Same war policy, same tax policy, same political positions overall. TC provided a comprehensive list and I even provided footage of McCain himself saying he's aligned with Bush on key issues. And where's your evidence to the contrary? All I see that you've provided is a link to johnmccain.com. Seems you're the liar.
Sure buddy, because saying McCain's policies are similar to Bush's
You're lying again. This is not the claim I was attacking. The claim I was attacking is that McCain is running for a "third Bush term."
One is a metaphor for the other, don't you see that? Or did you think people literally consider McCain and Bush to be the same person? When we say "third Bush term," a continuation of Bush's po