McCain: 'Phony tax cuts' from Obama

What a joke McCain has become. Most certified plumbers belong to a union. The republicans have been trying to destroy unions and suppress wages of the middle class for years. If you believe McCain speaks for the middle class, you are a fool.

McCain is dead on. The Obama "tax cut" is in fact the most massive welfare expansion in the history of this country and mere lingustic trickery to buy the votes of the traditional "Gimmecrat" base. It will be at the expense of millions of jobs.

The Hypocrisy of Senator McCain’s “Robo” Calls:

During the third and final presidential debate, Senator McCain questioned Senator Obama’s judgment as a result of his past association with domestic terrorist William Ayers. Senator Obama provided information on how, where and when he came in contact and worked with professor William Ayers. Senator Obama said that he has denounced Ayers' past radical views and actions that took place while he was 8 years old. In addition he said that professor Ayer is not associated with his campaign team. He has never consulted him and will never do so, if elected president.

Apparently, Senator McCain was not satisfied with the answer by Senator Obama. The day after the debate his campaign started his other “hail marry” by sending out thousands of hate-filled and negative automated phone “robo” calls to voters. The message says that the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama "worked closely with domestic terrorist" Ayers while in Chicago etc. The robo-call message is repeated in thousands of campaign flier mailed to residents in several states. The McCain campaign says the calls are warranted because Obama's connection to Ayers raises questions about his judgment and record. “This association is highly questionable and not out of bounds," McCain spokesman Rick Gorka said. On Friday, October 17, 2008 the Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, begged GOP presidential contender John McCain to stop making automated calls with negative personal attacks on his opponent in her state. "These kinds of tactics have no place in Maine politics," said Collins' spokesman, Kevin Kelley.

It should, however, be noted that Senator McCain has failed or refused to clearly explain his reasons for his continued close relationship with the notorious Watergate burglar and convicted felon Gordon Liddy. Liddy had acknowledged in court that he was prepared to kill during the Ellsberg break-in; plotted to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotted with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotted to kidnap protesters at the 1972 Republican National Convention. He was the only Watergate defendant who refused to identify or testify against his fellow conspirators. He served time in prison, including 100 days in solitary confinement.

McCain has never repudiated Liddy’s scandalous and criminal acts. On November 11, 2007 Senator McCain told Libby, “I am proud of you.” He then congratulated him for his continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great.” In exchange, Libby has donated thousands of dollars in political contributions to the Senator. In 1998 he attended a fundraiser in his honor at Liddy's home. Since February, 2008 Liddy has donated funds to the Senator’s current presidential campaign. Which principles and philosophies was Senator McCain referring to? It sounds like President Richard Milhous Nixon’s legacy?

On October 16, 2008 David Letterman asked McCain two relevant questions regarding the relationship - - "Did you not have a relationship with Gordon Liddy?" and "Did you attend a fundraiser at his house?" McCain, looking confused, conceded to having "met" Liddy. Then he added, "I know Gordon Liddy. He paid his debt, he went to prison.... I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy." This answer is very interesting. First, it does not adequately answer the question. Secondly, it acknowledges existence of a continued relationship. Thirdly, it portrays that since Liddy served time in jail, his radical scandalous and criminal past is no longer important or valid. Lastly, it portrays that political affiliation of an individual determines the validity or longevity of his or her past wrong doing record. Obviously Gordon is a far right conservative and Professor Ayers is not.

Both Ayers and Libby have not repented their past wrong doings. However, Ayers has reformed. He went on to attain a doctorate degree in education from the prestigious Columbia University. He is currently an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and in 1997 the city of Chicago named him its citizen of the year, as a testament of his outstanding contribution to humanity. On the contrary, Gordon has not reformed. He daily spews out his radical right-wing political ideology on his talk radio show. He claims that he was a “prisoner of war” during his time in federal prison. Presumably, it was a war against the United States and its democracy? In 1990s Gordon Libby advised the Davidian Branch in Waco Texas on how to kill Federal agents. In addition, he has said that, “When listening to Hitler's speeches, his sheer animal confidence and power of will, send electric current through my body." Between Libby and Gordon, who appears to be more dangerous person to our society? Just because Gordon Libby went to jail and Ayers’ charges were thrown–out or dropped by a court, does that make Ayers the most dangerous? It appears that Senator John McCain is attempting to establish an “Ayers litmus test” in judgment and record for any candidate from the State of Illinois who will be aspiring for a high office in the United States. If allowed to prevail, there is a danger that conservative republicans could extend this litmus test to professor Ayers’ students in the future?

Certainly McCain's continued relationship with a convicted Watergate burglar and domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy reflects on his judgment and character. The standards that he wishes his opponent to be judged should apply to him as well. How comfortable would a voter feel in voting for a presidential candidate who has a friendly relationship with a felon who committed the most catastrophic political wrong doing in the history of America and which resulted impeachment and resignation of a president? How can McCain lead a government of which his friend has previously advised on how to kill its staff and the Senator has never repudiated such words? We understand the importance of the Gordon radio talk show listeners to the McCain campaign, but questions raised herein related to a person whose activities led to resignation of President Nixon. To some independent voters driven by their heads rather than their hearts this subject alone is show stopper for Senator John McCain.

I hope the news media will assist the voters in soliciting Senator McCain to explain his hypocrisy on his guilt-by-association thinking that he conveniently exempts himself. Congratulations are to go to David Letterman for the lead that he took in confronting Senator McCain on the subject. I hope other journalists or news media will have the courage to follow David’s steps. American voters are entitled to answers from Senator McCain before the Election Day.

Who ever said taxes were socialism. Taxes are the way that we the people contribute to keep things like roads, education, safe water, health care for the less fortunate and our military going. It seems that for the last 8 years we are under some bizarre belief that we can offer oll these services and not have to pay for them- truly insane Voodoo Economics. All Obama is doing is rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy so this country can pay start paying its bills. The only goup of people who have done well in the past 8 years are the folks that got these cuts. My taxes did not go down but at the same time my wages stagnated and the cost of living skyrocketed. Great job King George. You really took care of your base: The Haves and The Have Mores.

Obama is a socialist like Bill Clinton was a socialist. He wants to raise the tax rate on the upper income brackets to those in place when Clinton was in office. Shocking!
Give it a rest, McCain. I've never seen a candidate twist the truth like McCain has - and this from a man who claims to be a "straight talker."
McCain's loose relationship with the truth, his penchant for grandstanding, and his mercurial temper make me glad he's going to get his fanny handed to him on November 4.

Obama is a socialist like Bill Clinton was a socialist. He wants to raise the tax rate on the upper income brackets to those in place when Clinton was in office. Shocking!
Give it a rest, McCain. I've never seen a candidate twist the truth like McCain has - and this from a man who claims to be a "straight talker."
McCain's loose relationship with the truth, his penchant for grandstanding, and his mercurial temper make me glad he's going to get his fanny handed to him on November 4.

When people that pay no federal income tax get a so-called tax break, how is that not a bogus lie on the part of liberal democrats?

So the tax deadbeat is joining the secessionist sympathizer on the straight talk team. Another outstanding choice.

Barack Hussein Obama is a manchurian candidate, and a made member of the corrupt political Chicago Machine, who speaks for 30 minutes and says absolutely nothing. Let's look at his voting record. Anti-gun, anti-military, anti-life, anti-free market, anti-religion, and anti-American. IF he wins, welcome to the new USSR (United States Socialist Republic).

How's that SOCIALIST bailout of the "free market" going, TL?

Mccain's tax plans are the SAME as Bush's. Vote for this man, BYE-BYE America!

Those people trying to label Obama a 'socialist' obviously don't really understand the meaning of the word; they also don't know much about economics if they think John McCain is the best choice for our economy. I suggest they pick up a book before trying to talk about things they don't understand. And in these shortcomings, they are joined by John McCain. C'mon, America, do we really want to elect someone who himself has admitted to knowing nothing about the economy? Sure, why not send ourselves further down the crapper than we already are?

McCain's spreading the wealth plan is more of the same of Bush's redistribution. So pick your spreader!

Hey Timbo, the only problem with the "taxes are for roads etc." bit is that we are taxed many times more than is necessary for the roads and other things you mention, and mostly those things are neglected for political hay-making moves, redistribution (up or down the income scale), and other nonsense. Furthermore, "this country" might just be getting tired of paying THEIR bills. What if we could all pass laws, backed by guns, to make other people pay our personal bills? It wouldn't be right, and it wouldn't work either.

Mccain's spreading the wealth is the same as Bush's redistribution. Take from the poor and middle class and give to the rich. So pick your spreader!

"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

If BO walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, I think that it would make him a socialist.

Dear Kathy, the answer is, because it is a bogus lie from McCain that people who pay no federal tax get a tax break - I know that is a difficult thing to wrap your head around, but if you were searching for the truth of the matter, it isn't coming out of McCain's mouth, let me tell you that much.

* * * * *
Posted by: Timbo | October 18, 2008 3:00 PM
*
No one has ever said that taxation equals socialism. What McCain and others have been saying is that raising taxes just to redistribute the wealth is socialism.
*
And they are correct. "Socialism" can legitimately describe any system of government based on collectivization of the population and a strong centralized government that either: (1) owns the means of production or (2) collects money from its citizens for redistribution in the form of services and benefits. Marxist socialists, in particular, have always favored wealth redistribution as a means of attaining social justice. Thus, we have heard people like Lenin saying, "From him according to his abilities, to him according to his needs." (Modern socialists forget, however, that Lenin also said, "He who doesn't work, doesn't eat.")
*
The federal government has many programs that fit the description of socialism - such as Social Security, the numerous entitlement programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, and, more recently, the Treasury Department's program for passing out money to banks and financial institutions. Many European countries have many more socialist programs and structures than we do. The difference is that most European countries don't flinch or blush at the suggestion that what they are doing is socialism (like we do). They are very happy with the label, "Continental Socialism."
*
There are many good objections to socialism, but the best is that it promotes social lethargy and inefficiency. One of the most extreme examples of socialism was the Soviet Union. It failed largely because of the inability of the command economy to motivate workers to produce in an environment where the ability to innovate and act in one's self interest was very limited. A common refrain among soviet workers was, "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." Likewise, just between the '60's and the '80s, the U.S. federal government paid out many trillions of dollars to stamp out poverty. None of it put a dent in the poverty level. That's because, ironically, throwing money at poverty doesn't make it go away. The mere redistribution of wealth, without addressing the root causes of poverty, doesn't work.
*
So, when McCain and others say that Obama is a socialist for favoring wealth redistribution, they are correct. He does. He wants new entitlement programs because he thoroughly adheres to his party's belief that wealth redistribution is necessary to attain social justice. When McCain and others are critical of socialism for being wasteful and destructive of ingenuity and productiveness, they are also telling the truth. Tax the producers in society long enough and hard enough and they will lose any interest in being productive, they will look at ways to increase prices and cut costs, or they will just leave. Just look at all the jobs lost to off-shoring already.

Forty percent of Americans currently pay no taxes. Under Obama's tax-credit proposals, those among the 40 percent will be the beneficiaries of entitlements (i.e., welfare). If you currently pay federal taxes and believe that an Obama administration and Democratic congress are going to decrease your current tax bill, dream on and keep drinking the Kool-aid because that's all you'll be able to afford.

Hey, Lefty & troll lord,

Obama is way left of Clinton.

You right wingers who have exploited "the system" all these years, get ready to pay higher income taxes. And estate taxes.

You are finally going to be taxed for the privilege of exploiting other Americans you have enjoyed for so many years.

If you rip off over $250000 per year from the rest of America, be prepared to pay a tad more

Or perhaps a bit more than a tad.

Poor babies.

That Bentley, that third home, that contemplated plastic surgery---you may have to forgo that.

So sorry!

No, 95% of Americans would see no tax increase. And about 80% of the Americans who actually do pay taxes would see their taxes go down.

There is no "socialist" redistribution of wealth to the non-taxpayers beyond what has existed within American transfer payment schemes for decades.

McCain, as usual, is lying through his teeth.

Forty percent of Americans currently pay no taxes.
Posted by: judithod | October 18, 2008 9:36 PM

So let me see.....40% pay nothing....and McBush wants to give the wealthy tax cuts. Sure puts everything on the middle class. When the hell do we get a break?

* * * * *
Posted by: Elrod | October 18, 2008 10:17 PM
*
You are wrong. Obama's health care plan involves a distribution of benefits that constitutes a massive redistribution of wealth.

* * * * *
Posted by: ornery | October 18, 2008 9:44 PM
*
Are you out of your mind? There are a lot of people who make more than $250K a year who get it through hard work. Many people who make more than $250K a year keep other people employed. If they get taxed "a tad more" they might not afford all their employees. So, I would do more than shrug all of it off with a little more than, "so sorry."

* * * * *
Posted by: Elrod | October 18, 2008 10:17 PM
*
P.S.
*
Large increases in entitlement programs over the past few years also represent massive wealth redistribution. There isn't one of them that Obambi didn't like.

FYI for Timbo,

you said:
"Taxes are the way that we the people contribute to keep things like roads, education, safe water, health care for the less fortunate and our military going. It seems that for the last 8 years we are under some bizarre belief that we can offer oll these services and not have to pay for them- truly insane Voodoo Economics."

We already pay taxes on goods and services and that would be sufficient. The problem is, trillions of dollars go missing every year, unaccounted for!! The government doesn't EVER explain where this money has gone.

Did you know that the income tax in unconstitutional. There is NO LAW stating that we have to file a 1040.

google "freedom to fascism"

Wake up America!!!!!!

Obama is not the answer. McCain is not the answer. They are part of the same system which is controlled by the power elite and have hijacked our country.

The Federal Reserve is controlled by private bankers, not a government department.

Educate yourselves.

Wake up America! If Obama wins this election, and starts raising taxes on businesses, what do you think is going to happen to your retirement income? Higher taxes means smaller dividend checks in the mailbox, and less money to live on. As far as “spreading the wealth” is concerned, if you hold down a job, more likely than not, you’ll see nothing extra in your bank account. If you make less than 250K a year, and don’t think you’ll be affected, then think again. Higher taxes means less spending and higher unemployment. What’s a small business owner going to do? Hire more people, or save the money for himself and his family? People who “have money” are also going to cut back. They’ll shop less frequently at your store, and dine less often at your restaurant. If you work in a service industry, expect to lose customers. To pay higher taxes, your suppliers will have no choice but to raise prices. In the current economy, do you really think that you can pass these costs along without losing more business? Instead of calling a plumber, people will attempt to make repairs themselves. On the surface, Obama’s proposals seem appealing. Dig deeper and you’ll quickly realize that all of us will be losers. In this country, you have to have money to be a politician. After leaving office, Obama will write another book and go off on the lecture circuit, making tens of millions of dollars, and leaving us with the mess he created. The country would have been a lot better off if Hilary Clinton were the Democratic nominee. Bill and Hilary understand the needs of working families, and would have found a way to strike a balance. Isn’t it funny that President Clinton has nothing bad to say about John McCain?

"John W", you sure have posted some moronic posts over the last few months, but the one you posted covering Senator Obama's plan for healthcare, is the most idiotic, I have read yet !! First of all, to equate healthcare, as wealth is pure ideological nonsense. All of your convoluted reasoning will not put Humptey-Dumptey, back together, again !! Secondly, I don't hear you whining when it comes to redistributing the wealth for you and your family to have police, fire and military protection. Where is your whine on that one, or has your self-interests gotten the best of your ideology !!? Oh, that was a rhetorical question, but I'm sure you knew that !! For your edification, all nations are made of the same ideas as socialism, the many unite, for a common purpose and share in the responsibilities of a nation, which means, paying taxes, all Americans, not only those who can't afford accountants and lawyers !! I'm sure you will be returning that socialistic check, from Social Security, if and when, you ever receive one.
That nonsense about a healthcare plan and redistribution of wealth is about as bad a statement, as President Bush's; Mission Accomplished !! You Republicans sure have a distorted view of who you are, but at the moment, you look like real losers to me and I think, our nation may agree with me on that one !! I wish you would put away, the distortions, the misrepresentations and the misinformation !! It hasn't worked for months now and I think America is very tired of the Bush-McCain Republicans' ' fear and smear ' campaign.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Billy,

Senator McCain's tax break is to corporations, not wealthy individuals. By lowering corporate taxes from the second highest rate in the world, cost of new investment will decrease and jobs will be created. More jobs will create increased tax revenues from indiviudals and less money on unemployment. Even Joe Biden understands that this is all about that three-letter word "J-O-B-S".

In addition, lower corporate tax rates will lead to lower product and service cost to the consumers.

You are wrong. Obama's health care plan involves a distribution of benefits that constitutes a massive redistribution of wealth.

Posted by: John W. | October 18, 2008 11:17 PM

But you're for spreading our wealth to Iraq. How long do we need to do thid? What is McBushs' plan besides waiting for some sort of perceived "victory"?

"But you're for spreading our wealth to Iraq. How long do we need to do this? What is McBushs' plan besides waiting for some sort of perceived 'victory'?"
*
Posted by: bill "Hussein" r. | October 19, 2008 8:10 AM
*
Where the heck did you ever get this cockamamie idea, bill? I have always believed the invasion of Iraq was an extremely foolish maneuver. As far as I am concerned, Iraq can rebuild itself with its own money. The only legitimate reason to be there (if there is one at all) is to help the current Iraqi government shore up its security - and not for a second longer than necessary - and only because they still want our help. I would have much preferred to see our government enlist a coalition of Iraq's neighbors - preferably Arab states - to contribute to the security situation so that we could have been out of there already. This was the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group. Bush's failure to do this is both disappointing and inexplicable (as Bush has been in general) - given that Iraq's neighbors have reason to contribute and some of them have actually offered to help.
*
And FYI - I am not a McCain fan, and I do not intend to vote for him. I voted for Ron Paul and I agree with his ideas about our proper role in world affairs. As such, I have no Idea what McCain's perceived vision of victory might be.

* * * * *
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | October 19, 2008 4:46 AM
*
Calling my posts "moronic" without actually explaining yourself is nothing more than an empty personal attack. It is no argument at all. It does nothing but relieve you of the burden of actually thinking.
*
I am, however, moderately troubled that you cannot grasp why Obama's health care plan involves a redistribution of wealth. Let's see if I can help you.
*
Not all wealth is money, but money is wealth - because it is normally used to support a person's well-being and lifestyle. So, if I paid your utilities bill for you, for example, I would have bestowed wealth upon you. That's because I would have relieved you of the need to expend your own money to meet your debts. The money you have saved from no longer having to pay your utility bill (in the aforementioned example) can be used to purchase other things for your benefit. In this, my displacement of your debt with my wealth has effected wealth redistribution.
*
This is exactly what happens in the case of welfare payments and other entitlement programs. Sums of money are collected from taxpayers and distributed to those in need who usually don't contribute to the tax burden. The money is not spent to pay for the needs of all taxpayers, inasmuch as the money displaces the burdens of only the less well to do - in which case there has been a redistribution of wealth.
*
Obama's health care plan works in the same fashion. His plan makes provision for a new public program that would function much like Medicare for those under age-65 who do not have access to an employer plan or qualify for existing government programs like Medicaid or SCHIP. This would be funded by taxpayers and, additionally, by employers who do not provide a private plan for their employees. It would be another taxpayer subsidy for those who cannot pay their own way. That is wealth redistribution. I mean, you don't think all of this is free, do you?
*
And no, Don, it is not like police, fire and military protection. Everyone benefits equally from those services. In contrast, the benefits handed out in all of these wealth redistribution schemes do not benefit everyone alike or equally - because eligibility is based on some level of demonstrable indigence.

Obama's first, second, and third priority is to get elected. If that means pandering to large numbers of unemployed, under employed, those on welfare, illegal aliens, and malcontents, he'll be happy to throw them a few crumbs as a way to get their votes. He will also turn democracy and capitalism on it's head, and villainize the affluent and successful in our society, in order to rally the masses behind him. With evangelical zeal Obama will convince his followers to replace reason with hope and belief ... to blindly follow him ... never challenge him ... and embrace his words as gospel. In the real, and unforgiving world of economics however, when you immediately gratify everyone by feasting on the goose that lays the golden eggs, the economy looses it's ability to continue generating growth and wealth. Obama is promising everyone a piece of the pie, whether they helped bake it, or not ... but, only in a socialistic, or communist state do the non-contributors demand to share equally in the property that belongs to others. Immediate gratification is like a drug to the malcontents, but in the big picture, every farmer knows that you never eat your seed crop. If Obama gets elected, America will turn into a third world country, with massive government welfare programs, unable to generate jobs for it's citizens, and unable to compete in the global markets. Keep America safe, free and strong ... elect McCain/Palin on November 4th.