Good lord, that girl is stupid. She starts with a decent argument and then gets all huffy about it. McCain gives a good answer and explains his reasoning. It is not about who gets taxed higher, but who should get tax breaks first.
So is the whole "socialism" bit being dropped since there's video of McCain supporting progressive taxation?
I believe what Ryan meant was "will they stop calling Obama a socialist since McCain appears to be a socialist as well?"
A. The girl was right. B. and more to the point, "progressive taxation" in and of itself, does not constitute "socialism" nor is having a progressive tax plan the sole reason for which Obama is accused of being socialistic. With respect to my fellow boardies who disagree, one can argue the merits of whether or not taxation should be progressive at all, and if it is to what extent, forever without touching on the question of socialism. So, while the OP is vaguely cute...in much the same way as a toddler stumbling into a wall is kinda cute...it ultimately accomplishes about the same thing.
I bet less than half the people you think you're nailing with this thread were ever going to vote for McCain.
they = McCain, Palin, "Joe the Plumber," and anyone else suggesting people should vote for McCain over Obama because Obama's a dirty socialist.
Hey, you're preachin' to the choir on that one. But apparently "Tom the Dancing Bug" is intimating that being like Nixon is not something to aspire to. Still... Obama's got a lot of money. Even though the hour is late, he could probably get an "Obama: Like Nixon--only without the experience!" ad campaign out there.
Watching that video, I realize that the McCain from whatever year that was is someone I'd consider voting for. Not like McCain now. Damn, it sucks. He used to be a very good Conservative and now he's undone all of it. That cartoon was awesome. About Nixon...trying to rig the election via Watergate. Although none of his people could be made to talk about WHAT they were doing, it was obvious. That's another reason he was a bad president. He did some good though; the China trip being one.
Link: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_25/b3888141_mz029.htm Try this: Inevitably, the measure of Reagan's legacy of the '80s must be taken against what followed: the Clinton years of the '90s. Reagan became President when America was economically sclerotic. His tax changes, combined with a tight monetary policy, helped to make the country competitive again. The price paid, however, was a soaring budget deficit. Reagan and his supply-side advisers believed that big tax cuts would pay for themselves by generating higher tax revenues through greater economic growth. It never happened. President Clinton took office in 1993, when those huge budget deficits weighed heavily on the markets and the economy. Clinton's turn away from liberal spending to balancing the budget (the "Rubinomics" policy of his Treasury Secretary, Robert E. Rubin) brought confidence back to the markets. When telecom and the Internet took off three years later, the economy ignited. Yet despite different fiscal policies, the macroeconomic outcomes were remarkably similar. Under Reagan, lower taxes and a soaring budget deficit produced a growth rate of 3.4%. Under Bill Clinton, higher taxes and a budget surplus generated growth of 3.6%. Throughout both Presidencies, from 1982 to 2000, interest rates fell and the stock market roared. So much for ideology. There were differences, of course. Under Clinton, unemployment was lower than under Reagan, poverty declined more, and wages rose faster for ordinary workers. But the essential truth remains: Strip away doctrinaire rhetoric, and here's the lesson of nearly two decades of economic activity: Decisive Presidential leadership that tackles the greatest threat of the day produces the policy mix best suited for growth. Sometimes that means lower taxes, sometimes higher. Sometimes it means less regulation, sometimes more.
