MyFox
 

HEAFFA2DA's Blog

by HEAFFA2DA from FLORIDA

Last Post 163 days, 3 hours Ago


McCain Flip-flop
Mar 26, 2008 | 4:31 AM
Category: News
Report This Post

Now Republican John McCain claims he opposed President Bush's tax cuts because they didn't come with spending cuts. He now claims he voted against the Bush tax cuts because he wanted to rein in spending. He now claims "I disagreed when we had tax cuts without spending restraint".

This flip-flop does not agree with McCain's comments when he opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003.

In 2001, McCain said the tax cuts favored the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. In 2003, he said there should be no tax cuts until the Iraq war costs were known.

16 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 16
Page 1 of 1
Procreate101 read my blog view my photos
Mar 26, 2008 | 7:10 AM

Right ……in 2001 he disagreed with the tax cuts. Then again in 2003 he disagreed with the tax cuts. Then in 2007 he again disagreed with the tax cuts. Who does this guy think he is? I cannot figure out where he stands with all of this flip flopping!
mmustangg read my blog view my photos
Mar 26, 2008 | 8:38 AM

I fail to see the flip or the flop you are talking about? If he has always disagreed with the tax cuts, what's the problem? In your example, you didn't show once where he changed his mind and agreed with the tax cuts?

If he now agrees with the tax cuts, all I can say is "IT'S ABOUT DAMNED TIME!" I'm not rich by any means but I dont want to see the wealthy hamstrung but high taxes! The wealthy are the economic engine of the country! The rest of us are the fuel. Without the wealthy creating jobs, and growing businesses, the rest of us suffer! Class envy is the biggest domestic threat we face in the US.
HEAFFA2DA read my blog
Mar 26, 2008 | 1:32 PM

Sorry, my mistake. I thought people on here knew what was going on & everything didn't have to be spelled out for them.

To bring you 2 up to date:
McCain has said he supports extending the tax cuts, which he initially voted against.

"I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief."--John McCain, May 2001

That would be the flip-flop that most people are aware of.

What he is also trying to do is change his reason for opposing the original tax cut - after all, concern for the middle class is more of a Democratic thing - to hope conservative voters have a short memory, or like you 2, just not paying attention.
mmustangg read my blog view my photos
Mar 26, 2008 | 2:15 PM

Changing your mind is ok but when you make a habit of it like the Democrats do, then it makes you a flip flopper. When the Democrats change their minds, they blame other people for misinforming them. Or they just look you in the face and say they never said that.

Like I said, if he changed his mind, IT'S ABOUT DAMNED TIME! *lol*
HEAFFA2DA read my blog
Mar 26, 2008 | 2:26 PM

Sure, it's OK to change your mind, as long as you're a Republican. Funny stuff.

Not as funny as the blog "Exxons Billion Dollar Profits " though.
mmustangg read my blog view my photos
Mar 26, 2008 | 2:34 PM

Either side can change their mind as long as they dont make a habit of it. You picked one thing he changed his mind on but there are dozens of things Hillary has changed her mind on. That makes her a flip flopper like John Kerry was/is! Obama is still too much of an unknown to know what he has said in the past. It's not like he has a long track record huh?
HEAFFA2DA read my blog
Mar 26, 2008 | 2:50 PM

Yep, politicians from both parties change their minds & flip-flop. Those brainwashed on either side claim they are only changing their minds but the other side is flip-flopping, same thing but one sounds better.
Sort of like how some politicians like to fool people yelling tax cut, while they turn around and increase rates, fees, or other taxes. Still money out of the pocket, but the politicians know they can fool some of the people.
Booggymann read my blog view my photos
Mar 26, 2008 | 5:16 PM

Unlike the democrats who flat out say they are going to tax us like nobody ever has.
HEAFFA2DA read my blog
Mar 26, 2008 | 5:37 PM

So you are claiming the Democrats are going to put the top marginal tax rate to over 90%? Of course not, so stop throwing out crap.
Booggymann read my blog view my photos
Mar 26, 2008 | 6:59 PM

Of course not I am saying 89%
HEAFFA2DA read my blog
Mar 27, 2008 | 4:54 AM

And I'm sure some of your side will actually believe that.
HEAFFA2DA read my blog
Mar 27, 2008 | 5:56 AM

Hey Booggymann - you claim to get under a liberals skin. Yet of your last 4 blogs (disregarding the duplication)- 1 was in direct response to one of my blogs & you addressed me directly in 2 others.

Just in case you can't add, that makes 3 out of your last 4. So who got under whose skin?
piratepatriot read my blog
Mar 27, 2008 | 9:37 PM

Wow....ALL of you have gotten it wrong. Senator McCain acknowledges that he STILL does not agree with the tax cuts, but NOT EXTENDING them would be that same as a TAX INCREASE. That is why he is in favor or extending them.

The Senator has ALWAYS been a believer in "Reganomics" and recognizes that when you have tax cuts, you MUST have spending cuts. The tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 DID NOT include spending cuts and were targeted more toward the Upper Middle Class and Upper Class. In "pure" Supply Side Economics, this would create a "trickle down" effect that would eventually reach the middle class and lower class.

Senator McCain wanted to effect the middle class quicker by giving tax breaks in the lower brackets, there by effecting growth faster.

That's ok though...."Conservatives" accused the Gipper of "VooDoo Economics" too!
HEAFFA2DA read my blog
Mar 28, 2008 | 4:30 AM

The tax cuts were enacted for a certain period of time. To say letting them expire is a tax increase is like saying when a sale at a store is over, then the store is raising prices.
piratepatriot read my blog
Mar 28, 2008 | 6:27 AM

HEAFFA2DA,

After being in a certain tax bracket for 5 to 8 years, ANY increase in the amount of taxes you pay IS A TAX INCREASE. Comparing it to a "sale" is not the same thing. If you'd like to pay more taxes voluntarily, be my guest. As for me, I'd rather not pay more taxes, especially when the Democrats have pubically stated that they would like to see a "re-distribution of wealth." That's COMMUNISM.
HEAFFA2DA read my blog
Mar 28, 2008 | 10:20 AM

I would like to pay no taxes. But then I guess we could all bit ch about the toll booths on every road.

The tax cuts were enacted for a certain period of time. This was very clear.
Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




HEAFFA2DA

Enjoys proving the zero IQ's of political wackos. The fun begins when they realize their lack of intelligence. Their typical way of then slithering away & crawling under a rock is to A)deny they said what they said (even if it's 2 posts earlier within same blog), B)say the same BS over & over (knowing that those on their same IQ level will then believe it must be correct since they heard it somewhere before), C)wimply delete posts on their blogs that show them for what they are, D)refer to you by changing your screen name (not abbreviating, but such as Annie Fanny - remember 3rd grade) or, E)the ultimate compliment, post blogs that a 3rd grader would be proud of under a take off of your screen name. Look at their posts, then sadly realize these individuals vote. Then you will have a better idea of why our country is in the mess it's in.

Member Since: 3/21/2008


 

RSS: XMLWhat is RSS?