12 June 2008

Let's play again: McCain vs McCain

This is fun:

In 2005 and 2007, McCain was in favor of raising the cap on the Social Security payroll tax as part of a hypothetical compromise solution.

On a Feb., 23, 2005, edition of "Meet the Press," NBC's Tim Russert asked McCain if he would support "as part of the solution to Social Security's solvency problem, that you lift the cap so that you would pay payroll tax, Social Security tax, not just on the first $90,000 of your income, but perhaps even higher?"
“As part of a compromise," said McCain, "I could, and other sacrifices, because we all know that it doesn't add up until we make some very serious and fundamental changes.”
In 2008, once again, the maverick senator found it expedient to ditch that position and in a remarkable display of chutzpah, criticize Obama for the very same compromise that he supported for several years:
"The Social Security tax cap, he wants to raise from $105,000 to I think
$200,000," McCain told Bloomberg News' Peter Cook. "Do you know how many
employers, small-business people that would mean a 12-percent increase in their
Social Security tax? I mean, this is just -- Senator Obama wants to
raise taxes," he continued. "I want to keep tax cuts in place. And I think
that it’s important that in a time of real crisis, economic crisis in America,
the last thing we want to do is raise people’s taxes now."
Let's score this one: Flip-flopped to pander to the right wing base? Check. Hypocritical criticism of Obama? Check. But it seems incomplete without the McCain mendacity. Where's the lie? Ah, yes, here it is:
Obama and his advisers have said on multiple occasions that he would continue to exempt income between roughly $100,000 and around $200,000 from the Social Security tax while imposing it on income above $200,000.
Deliberate mischaracterization of Obama's actual proposal? Check! A perfect score!

5 comments:

  1. The economy has changed, too, remember. Taxing "the rich" and businesses in ever-increasing amounts in a faltering economy makes new-job creation slower, if at all. "The rich" and, obviously, corporations themselves (who need investment from the rich) are those creating or not-creating all these jobs. If McCain wants to change his mind to allow for jobs to be created, isn't that a good thing?

    Economics 101, baby. Catch the fever.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry K, if Shadowfax understood economics, he'd be a Republican. But the most ironic feature of the McCain-bashing that has become de rigeur among "progressives" is that it represents a complete flip-flop.

    When he was willing to badmouth Bush, they "respected" him for his "independence" and "moderation." Now, of course, the party line has changed and parrots sqwawk a different tune.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry K, if Shadowfax understood economics, he'd be a Republican.

    Then why were all my economics and polisci professors communists?

    You can understand economics, but have such nasty liberal guilt that you'll support things you know will not help the rich, middle class, nor the poor (at least in the long run) because it takes away from the rich and liberals like for the rich to be less rich because it makes them feel good. I don't get it either. Me, I feel good when jobs are being created and a forth of my paycheck isn't being taken away from me which is why I'm not a Democrat.

    Oh, and McCain said that said Soc Security tax-cap increase would be a "compromise", which means he would not support it if he did not have someone with whom he had to compromise. Obama, on the other hand, won't shut up about repealing "Bush's tax cuts for the rich" and other such Liberal 101 stuff. The attitudes on that subject seem much different.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Then why were all my economics and polisci professors communists?

    There is tremendous pressure on academicians to conform (or pretend to conform) to the Leftist ideology that dominates most universities. People who refuse to follow the party line don’t get tenure.

    Even so, the percentage of Republicans (and Libertarians) in Economics departments is much (much) higher than in other departments. Why? Harvard economist Greg Mankiw believes that the study of economics tends to make people more conservative. He explains why in this post.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Okay, I over-generalized. My first economics professor @ community college (I went to community college in lieu of my last year of high school) was a Republican, and he was kinda funny. He'd offer to "have a smoke and a coffee" with any of us after class and talk about economics because "being a Republican means you're lonely around here." My mom is/was far-left and dad was "I'm not going to talk about politics at the dinner table", so I guess he was perhaps the person who changed my mind, or at least made me think initially about how things REALLY worked in the economy vs. idealism and ineffective feel-good policies.

    In keeping with your link, one of my govt professors attempted to, literally, with a tear in his eye, convince us that communism would work here because people want to work hard and further the economy because it gives them a sense of self-satisfaction. The explanation as to why it didn't work anywhere else was that the leaders themselves were corrupt and didn't let communism work.*Sigh* Good thing I paid $200/credit for that crap.

    ReplyDelete