Can someone supporting McCain please explain something to me.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by The Kin, Jul 27, 2008.

  1. McCain is proposing tax cuts, $5,000 health insurance credit, and continuation of the wars, but is McCain proposing any spending cuts?

    If any of the above is wrong, please feel free to correct me.

    The only reason I would ever vote for McCain is if he had a plan to cut billions in federal spending, especially the useless programs. But I just don't see any spending cuts, only promises of tax cuts and continued spending.
  2. Just planning to keep taxes the same as current on individuals, except modify the AMT, which BO also wants to do. He does want to bring corporate rates down to the level of the rest of the world (25%) to stem the flow of corporations going overseas. This makes sense. The US has the highest corporate rates in the world, along with Japan.

    I know he has vowed to veto anything with pork and earmarks, but he has been the number one enemy of pork for years, so nothing new there. I don't know much else about his tax cutting plans, but I know for a fact his spending proposals are nothing like Obama's.

    Not really a supporter of Mac, just petrified of Obama.
  3. Lucrum


  4. hughb


    I don't think I've heard him mention any specific spending cuts, but he wants to do away with pork and earmarks. If he's serious, that would be some serious spending cuts. I'm not supporting him anyway, he's not getting my vote regardless.
  5. I'm not a McCain fan by any means, but I will give the man credit for being one of the most dogged opponents of wasteful spending in the Congress. That said, his efforts have been futile, as I am guessing they will prove to be if he is elected president.

    Our elected representatives see spending, bailouts and an ever-expanding government as their tickets to remain in power. Nothing, short of national bankruptcy, will deter them.

    Obama is at the opposite end of the spectrum from McCain. He has proposed billions of new programs, all to be financed supposedly by reversing the Bush tax cuts. These programs will kick in just as Social Security and medicare are running out of money. The financial side of it is bad enough, but Obama is legitimizing the insidious notion that envy and resentment are acceptable foundations for government policy.
  6. The voodoo of supply side economics.
  7. Lucrum


    Well said, as usual.
  8. Supply side econ works very well if spending is cut also. It is a fact, not theory, that tax cuts spur an economy, and almost all economists believe in the validity of the Laffer Curve (they just argue at what rates it works). Even BO admits that a cap gains hike is not likely going to increase revenue, but make taxes more "fair". He is on the record on this issue. When rates were raised to 28%, revenue dropped. When they were lowered to 15%, revenue increased dramatically. FACT. You can measure this.

    Bottom line: high taxes and spending = bad.

    Numerous examples of how low taxes are spurring huge growth and bringing in big revenue:

    Ireland. Pretty much the entire reason for the incredible growth of the Celtic Tiger.

    Russia. most Russians wouldn't pay their taxes at all until rates were dramatically lowered to a 13% flat rate. Now almost all of them do. (except the mafia guys of course). This is an extreme example of the Laffer Curve at work, but it is valid everywhere. In Scandinavia, for example, they just send funds abroad cause their taxes are so high, etc. one of my best friends is from Finland, and keeps 90% of his net worth in Ireland and Switzerland!

    Now, what you don't want is low taxes with high spending, as we have had since 9/11.
  10. "If" is the middle word of life. Do you have a real world example where this was actually accomplished?

    Let's be sure not to forget the Reagan years:

    "The extreme promises of supply-side economics did not materialize. President Reagan argued that because of the effect depicted in the Laffer curve, the government could maintain expenditures, cut tax rates, and balance the budget. This was not the case. Government revenues fell sharply from levels that would have been realized without the tax cuts."
    - Karl Case & Ray Fair, Principles of Economics (2007)
    #10     Jul 28, 2008