• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

McCain attacks Obama on windfall profit tax

jonks

Lifer
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080617/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

Excerpts:

McCain criticized Obama, his Democratic rival, repeatedly in excerpts of a speech planned for delivery Tuesday evening. He cited Obama's advocacy of a tax on excess oil industry profits as well as the Democrat's vote for President Bush's energy legislation in 2005.

McCain reserved his sharpest words for the windfall profits tax.

"If that plan sounds familiar, it's because that was President Carter's big idea, too. ... I'm all for recycling, but it's better applied to paper and plastic than to the failed policies of the 1970s," McCain said in the excerpts.

But on May 5, campaigning in North Carolina, McCain said he was willing to consider the same proposal.

"I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere. I'd be glad to look not just at the windfall profits tax, that's not what bothers me, but we should look at any incentives that we are giving to people ? or industries or corporations ? that are distorting the markets," he said.

A spokeswoman said McCain had neither erred in his earlier comment nor changed his mind since. "He said he is willing to look at all ideas not simply Republican or Democratic ideas," said Jill Hazelbaker, McCain's communications director.

***************************

Ok, so McCain is criticizing Obama for supporting a windfall tax proposal which McCain himself said didn't bother him just one month ago. At least he was honest enough to stop calling it the straight talk express.
 
He said he would be glad to look at it. Not that he endorsed it. Apparently he has looked at it and decided it was as foolish as the other times we have tried it.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
He said he would be glad to look at it. Not that he endorsed it. Apparently he has looked at it and decided it was as foolish as the other times we have tried it.

Bullshit. He's trying to have it both ways. For a Republican, when he says things like "I don't like obscene profits being made anywhere", I doubt he's really one. And who the fuck is he to judge people on their "obsene profits"?
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
He said he would be glad to look at it. Not that he endorsed it. Apparently he has looked at it and decided it was as foolish as the other times we have tried it.

I'm wondering what that "look" consisted of. We know he's personally not great with economics, and he's recently stated he has no faith in economists. So who exactly does he go over economic policy with to decide what is a good idea and what is a foolish idea?
 
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Genx87
He said he would be glad to look at it. Not that he endorsed it. Apparently he has looked at it and decided it was as foolish as the other times we have tried it.

I'm wondering what that "look" consisted of. We know he's personally not great with economics, and he's recently stated he has no faith in economists. So who exactly does he go over economic policy with to decide what is a good idea and what is a foolish idea?

His c#%t wife.

EDIT: I kid. I kid.
 
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Genx87
He said he would be glad to look at it. Not that he endorsed it. Apparently he has looked at it and decided it was as foolish as the other times we have tried it.

I'm wondering what that "look" consisted of. We know he's personally not great with economics, and he's recently stated he has no faith in economists. So who exactly does he go over economic policy with to decide what is a good idea and what is a foolish idea?

this
 
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Genx87
He said he would be glad to look at it. Not that he endorsed it. Apparently he has looked at it and decided it was as foolish as the other times we have tried it.

I'm wondering what that "look" consisted of. We know he's personally not great with economics, and he's recently stated he has no faith in economists. So who exactly does he go over economic policy with to decide what is a good idea and what is a foolish idea?

this

:laugh:
 
I would put it to Big Oil in this way:

Pick your poison, either we're going to tax your ridiculous profits, or you give up all of your subsidies. You can't have it both ways.

Let them decide.
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
He said he would be glad to look at it. Not that he endorsed it. Apparently he has looked at it and decided it was as foolish as the other times we have tried it.

you are spinning it.

 
Oh noes...he must be a flip-flopper !!! This is getting comical. BTW...where do you get this kind of "information"? What web sites are you pulling this stuff from? I've definitely got to check this out.
 
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Genx87
He said he would be glad to look at it. Not that he endorsed it. Apparently he has looked at it and decided it was as foolish as the other times we have tried it.

I'm wondering what that "look" consisted of. We know he's personally not great with economics, and he's recently stated he has no faith in economists. So who exactly does he go over economic policy with to decide what is a good idea and what is a foolish idea?

Looks like he's reading my posts here in P&N. 😉

I've been complaining that it's a crappy idea.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: ayabe
I would put it to Big Oil in this way:

Pick your poison, either we're going to tax your ridiculous profits, or you give up all of your subsidies. You can't have it both ways.

Let them decide.

They don't need any freak'in subsidies.

Wht the h3ll hasn't the Dem Congress passed a bill eliminating that? (Did I miss it, and GWB vetoed it?)

They should have done it last year. No need for government subsidies for wildly profitable activities.

But I would like to see how much these so-called subsidies amount to. I looked up Exxon Mobile (IIRC) and they paid a boat-load of income taxes last year. Their rate was quite a bit higher than 35% (which is the max). So I've got to question how high they really are.

Fern
 
Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Oh noes...he must be a flip-flopper !!! This is getting comical. BTW...where do you get this kind of "information"? What web sites are you pulling this stuff from? I've definitely got to check this out.

The raging liberals over at the Associated Press, you know, the news source utilized by every major media outlet, including Fox News, that other bastion of liberalism. :roll: You could have just clicked the link in the OP to find out instead of asking where the story comes from.
 
Back
Top