McCain's Economic Speech

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com...008/06/10/1128752.aspx

From NBC's Mark Murray
Democrats are blasting McCain's economic speech today in DC on at least two different fronts. One, the Democratic National Committee is taking issue with the Arizona senator's claim that Obama would enact "the single largest tax increase since the Second World War" by citing this research from Annenberg's Factcheck.org:

"By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement 'the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;' it would be the fifth largest. At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration -- the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

Second, Democrats -- led by the left-leaning Huffington Post -- are pointing out that McCain seems to have flip-flopped on the estate tax. Here's McCain today: "The estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books, and the first step to reform is to keep it predictable and keep it low."

But here's McCain speaking on the Senate floor on June 8, 2006: "In his 1906 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the creation of a Federal inheritance tax. Roosevelt explained: 'The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.' Additionally, in a 1907 speech he said: 'Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.' He noted, however, that such taxation should 'be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.'"

McCain added, "I agree with President Roosevelt, and I remain opposed to full repeal of the estate tax. I have indicated, for several years now, that I am open to considering a reasonable compromise that addresses the concerns of those on both sides of this issue. What constituted a fortune 'swollen beyond all healthy limits' in 1907 is very different from the wealth we see today. I don't think it's unreasonable to raise the amount exempted from estate taxes in order to protect America's family farms and small businesses while maintaining the tax for huge fortunes."

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

Issue 1: "biggest tax increase in history" was debunked by factcheck months ago.

Issue 2: Someone is going to pull the flip flop lever on this one. Changing positions over 20 years = learning from experience. Changing position and uttering hyped up rhetoric 2 years later for political expedience = pandering. And before we explode into a 10 page debate on the estate tax, a quick search will reveal such threads already exist. Not that that ever stops anyone anyway, but I said it, so I feel better.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
am I missing something here? he never called for the removal of the estate tax, just that it's kept predictable and low.
 

AnnonUSA

Senior member
Nov 18, 2007
468
0
0
McCain will just follow the lead of GWB and have the Fed Print up more money.....

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
am I missing something here? he never called for the removal of the estate tax, just that it's kept predictable and low.

I think the problem is the jump from 2 years ago's endorsement of Teddy's creation of the estate tax "in my judgment [the estate tax] should be part of our system of federal taxation" to today's "the estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books".

Put em together and you get "I think we should keep as part of our system of federal taxation one of the most unfair tax laws in existence." HUH?

Of course that might have been McCain dressed as T.R. who said those things in 1906. ;)
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,030
2
61
One cannot be a fiscal conservative and support a neo-conservative foreign policy. Two very conflicting ideologies.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
They both have these grand ideas that they won't be able to implement. Which ever one gets elected he'll be spending most of his time and energy trying to fix the mess Bush got us into. Seeing as Bush is the Republicans and old Sid McSame embraces Bushes policies I can't vote for him.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration -- the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

Except that both Obama and Clinton along with most of the Democrats have been adamantly against making the tax cuts permanent and have helped block efforts to do so.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: Queasy
At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration -- the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

Except that both Obama and Clinton along with most of the Democrats have been adamantly against making the tax cuts permanent and have helped block efforts to do so.

That's probably because the party of fiscal responsibility has ran up record budget deficits and year-over-year spending increases during its most recent stint in the White House.
 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration -- the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

Except that both Obama and Clinton along with most of the Democrats have been adamantly against making the tax cuts permanent and have helped block efforts to do so.

That's probably because the party of fiscal responsibility has ran up record budget deficits and year-over-year spending increases during its most recent stint in the White House.

And the other party has been in charge of the House and Senate for the last two years and have been running up the spending even worse while pigging out at the earmark trough to the tune of double the number of earmark requests from last year.

They both suck.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Well, I think we should take McCain at his word, the guy said he knows nothing about economics and has proved it.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration -- the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

Except that both Obama and Clinton along with most of the Democrats have been adamantly against making the tax cuts permanent and have helped block efforts to do so.

That's probably because the party of fiscal responsibility has ran up record budget deficits and year-over-year spending increases during its most recent stint in the White House.

And the other party has been in charge of the House and Senate for the last two years and have been running up the spending even worse while pigging out at the earmark trough.

They both suck.
Yeah but you Republicans have done irreparable damage to our country via Bush and shouldn't be rewarded for it with another 4 years in the White House

 

SlingXShot

Senior member
Jan 7, 2004
248
0
0
I watched that speech this morning. Aside from almost falling asleep, he doesn't know what he is talking about...
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration -- the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

Except that both Obama and Clinton along with most of the Democrats have been adamantly against making the tax cuts permanent and have helped block efforts to do so.

That's probably because the party of fiscal responsibility has ran up record budget deficits and year-over-year spending increases during its most recent stint in the White House.

And the other party has been in charge of the House and Senate for the last two years and have been running up the spending even worse while pigging out at the earmark trough.

They both suck.

And yet you CLEARLY support one over the other, to the point where you spin lies when it serves your partisan hackery, and ignore the basic economic facts.

Those tax cuts will be allowed to expire regardless of who gets elected President this fall. Economic reality, and not partisan ideology, will be the cause.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,651
2,395
126
As a professional that works with estates on a regular basis, let me assure all the nervous ninnies that the estate tax is just about nonexistent now. In fact, I don't recall ever working on an estate since Ronald Reagan's era (he gutted the estate tax) where any federal estate tax was owed at all.

Presently, the federal estate tax exemption is $2,000,000 (and going up each year). There are certain very simple steps to take to easily exclude property from the taxable estate. Finally, according to a very quick google check I just did, only ten states (fortunately not mine) have ANY sort of state inheritance tax left. This number is going down rapidly too, to prevent the flight of the wealthy to Florida and the sunbelt.

Frankly, as a professional in this field I view the estate tax "problem" as about as significant a problem as litter caused by pencil stubs. There's lot of fire and emotion, usually from the libertarian types, but darn little substance.

OTOH, I spent a lot of expensive time getting clients out from the financial damage caused by so-called "living trusts" generated for huge fees by unsrupulous persons. If anyone reading this is ever tempted to do something like that, spend a few bucks and get a second opinion from a different reputable attorney first. You will probably save thousands of dollars now, and save your heirs tens of thousands of dollars later. That's a problem McCain should address, but it would involve having effective regulation which seems to be anathema to him.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: SlingXShot
I watched that speech this morning. Aside from almost falling asleep, he doesn't know what he is talking about...

He openly admits that he doesn't know anything about economics, so what else is there to say?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,816
83
91
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: loki8481
am I missing something here? he never called for the removal of the estate tax, just that it's kept predictable and low.

I think the problem is the jump from 2 years ago's endorsement of Teddy's creation of the estate tax "in my judgment [the estate tax] should be part of our system of federal taxation" to today's "the estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books".

Put em together and you get "I think we should keep as part of our system of federal taxation one of the most unfair tax laws in existence." HUH?

Of course that might have been McCain dressed as T.R. who said those things in 1906. ;)

you keep leaving off the end of the sentence, though... "and the first step to reform is to keep it predictable and keep it low."

I guess you could argue that he could be implying in double-top secret code word dog whistle language that the second step is removing it, but it doesn't seem that way to my admittedly biased ears.
 

mxyzptlk

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2008
1,893
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah but you Republicans have done irreparable damage to our country via Bush and shouldn't be rewarded for it with another 4 years in the White House
I don't like this line of reasoning. We should be giving control of our government to those best suited to run it, not punishing one side by rewarding the other for being slightly less incompetent. If anything both parties should be punished* for becoming cheap imitations of each other.

It's well past time for a 3 or more party system. Democrats and republicans can both suck a nut.




*and by punish, I mean corporal.. I'd say a good public flogging is in order.

 

Queasy

Moderator<br>Console Gaming
Aug 24, 2001
31,796
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration -- the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010.

Except that both Obama and Clinton along with most of the Democrats have been adamantly against making the tax cuts permanent and have helped block efforts to do so.

That's probably because the party of fiscal responsibility has ran up record budget deficits and year-over-year spending increases during its most recent stint in the White House.

And the other party has been in charge of the House and Senate for the last two years and have been running up the spending even worse while pigging out at the earmark trough.

They both suck.

And yet you CLEARLY support one over the other, to the point where you spin lies when it serves your partisan hackery, and ignore the basic economic facts.

No I don't. I'm an independent. I don't hold to party ideology but I will vote for the individual candidate(s) that are closest to my values. I've voted for Repubs, Dems, and even Libertarians in the past. Spending is the problem and an increase in taxes will not solve that.

YAWN to your personal attack too.

Those tax cuts will be allowed to expire regardless of who gets elected President this fall. Economic reality, and not partisan ideology, will be the cause.

They will expire because the Dems have control of the House and Senate. Thus, there would be no way a bill to make the tax cuts permanent would be allowed to reach the floor anyway.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: mxyzptlk
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Yeah but you Republicans have done irreparable damage to our country via Bush and shouldn't be rewarded for it with another 4 years in the White House
I don't like this line of reasoning. We should be giving control of our government to those best suited to run it, not punishing one side by rewarding the other for being slightly less incompetent. If anything both parties should be punished* for becoming cheap imitations of each other.

It's well past time for a 3 or more party system. Democrats and republicans can both suck a nut.




*and by punish, I mean corporal.. I'd say a good public flogging is in order.
Well if you consider not rehiring somebody because they did one shitty job as punishment then so be it. We already know that McCains policies, which are the same as Bushes, don't work so it should be a rather easy choice.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,303
136
Originally posted by: Queasy
No I don't. I'm an independent. I don't hold to party ideology but I will vote for the individual candidate(s) that are closest to my values. I've voted for Repubs, Dems, and even Libertarians in the past. Spending is the problem and an increase in taxes will not solve that.

YAWN to your personal attack too.

Oh yeah... because every independent spends his entire time of P&N attacking only one party while defending the ideology of the other.

They will expire because the Dems have control of the House and Senate. Thus, there would be no way a bill to make the tax cuts permanent would be allowed to reach the floor anyway.

This is extremely naive. I'm speechless in fact.

Let me say it again: Those tax cuts will be allowed to expire regardless of who gets elected President this fall. Economic reality, and not partisan ideology, will be the cause.

I'll even expand. If by some unlikely miracle, the Republicans took over supermajority control of the both the House and Senate, the tax cuts would still be allowed to expire. Naturally, the Pubs don't want that though... how else could they keep their partisan faithful believing in their mythical tax policies?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
No I don't. I'm an independent. I don't hold to party ideology but I will vote for the individual candidate(s) that are closest to my values. I've voted for Repubs, Dems, and even Libertarians in the past. Spending is the problem and an increase in taxes will not solve that.

YAWN to your personal attack too.

Oh yeah... because every independent spends his entire time of P&N attacking only one party while defending the ideology of the other.
Well in Sleazy's defense he's not the only one. Well he might do more defending of one party than most Independents but I think the reason a lot of us are Independents is because neither party has such a good track record and we usually have a real problem with one of the parties in general
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Here's McCain today: "The estate tax is one of the most unfair tax laws on the books, and the first step to reform is to keep it predictable and keep it low."

But here's McCain speaking on the Senate floor on June 8, 2006: "In his 1906 State of the Union Address, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed the creation of a Federal inheritance tax. Roosevelt explained: 'The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government.' Additionally, in a 1907 speech he said: 'Most great civilized countries have an income tax and an inheritance tax. In my judgment both should be part of our system of federal taxation.' He noted, however, that such taxation should 'be aimed merely at the inheritance or transmission in their entirety of those fortunes swollen beyond all healthy limits.'"

I don't see any discernable difference in his position, and your fancy use of bolding didn't fool me.

Otherwise, as a tax CPA I agree with Thump553.

More election year BS.

Fern
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,377
1
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Queasy
No I don't. I'm an independent. I don't hold to party ideology but I will vote for the individual candidate(s) that are closest to my values. I've voted for Repubs, Dems, and even Libertarians in the past. Spending is the problem and an increase in taxes will not solve that.

YAWN to your personal attack too.

Oh yeah... because every independent spends his entire time of P&N attacking only one party while defending the ideology of the other.
Well in Sleazy's defense he's not the only one. Well he might do more defending of one party than most Independents but I think the reason a lot of us are Independents is because neither party has such a good track record and we usually have a real problem with one of the parties in general

:thumbsup:

To side so firmly with either democrats or republicans or any single party for that matter is downright foolish imo. My threads here obviously show that I lean more towards the democratic side, but I'll be damned if I said that I believe the democrats are some sort of ultimate good or right. I believe it is important to view each issue with a clean slate in mind as much as humanly possible.