Question for McCain supporters

[RunInRed 16,454]

A big part of McCain's fiscal policy proposals is to prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring in 2010. My question is, how is he going to do this? He can't do this through an executive order or through any power of the such. Only congress can do this - which the Democrats are in control of and more than likely will have an even larger majority when the next President takes the oath of office. So my question is, how is McCain going to fulfill his campaign promise to "keep taxes low" ?

[AURaptor 1,125]

Lets first have the election before you start counting seats for the Dems in the House, ok ?

As for what McCain can do? He can veto the bill , for one. If the House overrides it, he can / will reap the benefits of a furious public when they see the economy go in the tank, and he having stood up to the clueless Dems as best he could. Come the midterm election, folks will remember McCain's action and give him more seats to work with.

That's how.

[RunInRed 16,454]

It's a numbers game in congress Raptor - ask even those on your side and they will tell that the Republicans stand to lose even more seats this fall. And why do you think that is?

[WinCrimson 61]

Lets first have the election before you start counting seats for the Dems in the House, ok ?

As for what McCain can do? He can veto the bill , for one. If the House overrides it, he can / will reap the benefits of a furious public when they see the economy go in the tank, and he having stood up to the clueless Dems as best he could. Come the midterm election, folks will remember McCain's action and give him more seats to work with.

That's how.

A contradiction? Why, of course not.

TitanTiger's recent statement on consistency could not be more true.

[RunInRed 16,454]

I'm kind of surpised there aren't more responses to this, especially from BG and other low tax guys...I mean this a big deal and the cornerstone of McCain's domestic/economic policy....yet it is a promise he has no chance of being able to fulfill if elected....bet you won't hear this in the mainstream media.

[autigeremt 6,660]

Red.....Many of us have a life outside of this site (joke).

McCain will champion the cause, and he'll WORK with Congress to get things done. If Congress want's to overide him, then they will have to answer the country when the time comes.

This is proof of what I have said for years........NO ONE PERSON CAN DO IT ALL! It takes Congress and the President to make things happen.

McCain will fight the fight, which is a total 180 of the rise in taxes that we will get from the leader of the U.S.S.A.

[otterinbham 0]

Here's my take on it if McCain wins.

First, he'll probably start vetoing every spending bill in sight that looks as if it has pork in it. That will force Congress into actually thinking twice before dumping in frivolous spending. Of course, it's not a guarantee that a given veto will avoid override, but it will certainly make things harder for Congress. He voted against the farm bill, he voted against the steel bill, and he's been a pretty consistent advocate for spending restraint. With this in mind, I think he'd make spending the key wedge issue between him and Congress. If the Congressional Republicans have any brains, they'll go along with him on this. After all, had federal spending simply held the line with inflation from 2001 to today, the government would have a surplus with current taxation levels even with the war in Iraq.

Now, the other thing to take into consideration is that the tax cuts are due to expire in a Congressional election year. By that time, the economy should be back in expansion mode again, which means it will be politically difficult to rescind the tax cuts, particularly when corporate taxes in this country are higher than any other industrialized country except Japan.

However, if Congress actually does have political "courage" to repeal the tax cuts, then watch out. The Democratic congressional gains in 2008 will prove ephemeral, even more so since the public does not have W to vote against anymore.

On the flip side of the coin, an Obama presidency will actually be in a difficult position, á la Clinton during his first term. One of the things you have to remember is that people are turning to Obama because he's the AntiBush, not because he's basically taken Lyndon Johnson's Great Society ideals and put them in a more palatable box. A surefire way to kill off the economic recovery during his first term will be tax increases to find his programs. And if he manages to put through the tax increases, the Democratic Party will again take an almost certain hit in the 2010 elections.

It boils down to the fact that Obama is clinging to some discredited Keynsian notions regarding tax rates versus revenue, meaning that the higher the tax rate is the more revenue government realizes. Actually, this is almost always the opposite. For unless the government closes every single loophole, those in higher tax brackets will find ways to shelter income and wealth from more punitive taxation levels, while a lower tax rate actually yields more revenue. This has been proven with the capital gains rates, and has been proven with lower tax rates in other industrialized countries aside from the United States.

[au2004ece 30]

I'm kind of surpised there aren't more responses to this, especially from BG and other low tax guys...I mean this a big deal and the cornerstone of McCain's domestic/economic policy....yet it is a promise he has no chance of being able to fulfill if elected....bet you won't hear this in the mainstream media.

So instead of arguing that McCain is wrong to want to extend the tax cuts, you argue that he won't get it because the democrats in congress like high taxes? McCain obviously can't promise that the congress will extend the tax cuts, but he can personally support the extension. This will show every American that the only thing standing between continuing the tax cuts are the democrats in Congress. Also, McCain supporting the extension of previous tax cuts shows that he will not increase taxes. This is in stark constrast to Obama who will have to raise taxes very high on top of allowing the tax cuts to expire to accomplish any of his liberal goals.

[RunInRed 16,454]

I'm not necessarily against extending the tax cuts IF the numbers work (as I have expressed numerous times before). I'm more concerned about fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. If we can do all that at current tax levels and still meet our funding requirements, then I'm all ears. The point of the thread was to point out some thing that not many have considered - Democrats will most likely control Congress with an even larger majority than today so a lot of McCain's positions are pie-in-the-sky campaign promises that will never be enacted if elected IMO.

[BamaGrad03 0]

I'm not necessarily against extending the tax cuts IF the numbers work (as I have expressed numerious times before). I'm more concerned about fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. If we can do all that at current tax levels and still meet our funding requirements, then I'm all ears. The point of the thread was to point out some thing that not many have considered - Democrats will most likely control Congress with an even larger majority than today so a lot of McCain's position are pie-in-the-sky campaign promises that will never be enacted if elected IMO.

So basically you're saying anytime one party controls congress, we should just make a rule that we have to elect a president of the same party?

[RunInRed 16,454]

I'm not necessarily against extending the tax cuts IF the numbers work (as I have expressed numerous times before). I'm more concerned about fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. If we can do all that at current tax levels and still meet our funding requirements, then I'm all ears. The point of the thread was to point out some thing that not many have considered - Democrats will most likely control Congress with an even larger majority than today so a lot of McCain's positions are pie-in-the-sky campaign promises that will never be enacted if elected IMO.

So basically you're saying anytime one party controls congress, we should just make a rule that we have to elect a president of the same party?

Not at all. But at the same time, there is a certain reality to the situation that is worth pointing out, which is what I have done.

Another way to think about it: how many Democrats are going to vote against their interest/platform and side with a McCain administration? In many ways, I think it would be just 4 more years of gridlock.

[au2004ece 30]

I'm not necessarily against extending the tax cuts IF the numbers work (as I have expressed numerous times before). I'm more concerned about fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. If we can do all that at current tax levels and still meet our funding requirements, then I'm all ears. The point of the thread was to point out some thing that not many have considered - Democrats will most likely control Congress with an even larger majority than today so a lot of McCain's positions are pie-in-the-sky campaign promises that will never be enacted if elected IMO.

I find it rather ironic that you are "most concerned about fiscal responsibility" and are "not necessarily against extending the tax cuts if the numbers are right" and yet you choose Obama. Fiscal Responsibility, no pork spending, etc are in McCain's camp all the way. And, Obama is the best way to guarantee that the numbers WON'T work out. Obama has promised to create new welfare programs and raise taxes. So not only will what you are most concerned about suffer, you will also have higher taxes. It's like Obama wants to have your cake and eat it too.

[au2004ece 30]

Not at all. But at the same time, there is a certain reality to the situation that is worth pointing out, which is what I have done.

Another way to think about it: how many Democrats are going to vote against their interest/platform and side with a McCain administration? In many ways, I think it would be just 4 more years of gridlock.

I would take gridlock for 4 years over what I expect we are going to get.

[TitanTiger 20,508]

I actually tend to believe that having Congress be from one party and the President from the other ends up working the best. Seems to keep each side's worst tendencies in check.

[Auburn85 432]

I'm not necessarily against extending the tax cuts IF the numbers work (as I have expressed numerous times before). I'm more concerned about fiscal responsibility and reducing the deficit. If we can do all that at current tax levels and still meet our funding requirements, then I'm all ears. The point of the thread was to point out some thing that not many have considered - Democrats will most likely control Congress with an even larger majority than today so a lot of McCain's positions are pie-in-the-sky campaign promises that will never be enacted if elected IMO.

your for fiscal responsibility. you're not totally against extending the tax cuts, if the numbers work. out of all the proposed tax increases that Obama has talked about, none of them go to control debt. they give the government more mandatory charity.

i'm not going to list them all because I've listed some of the proposed tax increases before.

1) the repeal of the bush tax cuts (the top income earners, at least that's what we've been told)- goes to pay for Universal Healthcare Not debt

2) windfall profit tax on oil companies- to go towards alternative energy and probably help lower income people pay for fuel and energy costs Not debt

3) the 15% capital gains tax bracket - to make things fairer and hasn't really said exactly what the extra tax will be for. So for now... Not debt

4) We just seen a new .5% surcharge income tax to pay for the military benefits I think, so... Not debt

5)We've heard about this global poverty inititive that will include a yearly percentage of our GDP. Something in the neighborhood of .5-.7%... Not debt

6)Increasing the cap for Social Security will obviously go towards SS... Not debt

7)Does Obama favor raising the corporate income tax rate? As otter alluded to earlier, we have the second highest in the world sides Japan. And we're very close to that. BTW, agree with your post whole-heartedly Otter.

Have I left any out?

So are all of these proposed tax increases to make government BIGGER, while our country is in so much debt, fiscally responsible???