well, if he did so after an accompanying cut in federal expenditures, it might be something worth considering.

as soon as he lets us know about his proposed spending cuts, i'll start caring.

also, how he plans to pass this through a democratic congress.

/details, details

you know it's farked up when you can read a sentence like "would save an estimated 15 billion dollars annually" and think to yourself, Well that's hardly anything compared to the costs.

Is this the same John McCain who thought tax cuts during a time of war were "an affront to my conscience?"

What an asshole.

i hate this race already, and it's only getting worse every single day.

good. pay for it by eliminating the following:
CFTC
EPA
FCC
SEC


and ummm.... a few others!

He wants to DOUBLE the incentive for people to make more farking mouths to feed. There should be a tax penalty for that shiat.

robsul82: Is this the same John McCain who thought tax cuts during a time of war were "an affront to my conscience?"


That bulge on the side of his face is a cock-pocket, to help with the voter fellation.

RobertBruce: good. pay for it by eliminating the following:
CFTC
EPA
FCC
SEC


and ummm.... a few others!

Like....
DEA
ATF
Homeland Security
FCC (yeah, I know you said that. Bears repeating.)

madmann: Bears repeating.

Blues_X: robsul82: Is this the same John McCain who thought tax cuts during a time of war were "an affront to my conscience?"


That bulge on the side of his face is a cock-pocket, to help with the voter fellation.

Oh wow, that just made me snort.

The band played "Nearer My God to Thee."

John McCain admitted economics isn't his thing. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," he said. But, "I've got Greenspan's book," he assured the audience.


He has a book. What more can we ask?

winterlongone: i hate this race already, and it's only getting worse every single day.

Way to pull the race card right up front in the thread.

robsul82: Is this the same John McCain who thought tax cuts during a time of war were "an affront to my conscience?"

No, that was the cool McCain, like the one who called fundy evangelicals "agents of intolerance."

The new McCain has no conscience about pandering to fools about taxes, or fellating batshiat fundies.

burndtdan: madmann: Bears repeating.

You owe me a keyboad and a SuperFellator 3000^tm.

Do people really want to trust our current fragile economy to John "I voted against tax cuts before I was for them" McCain? He's another Dubya. Let's not have any more Dubyas in office ever again.

RobertBruce: good. pay for it by eliminating the following:
CFTC
EPA
FCC
SEC

Umm.. When exactly did corporations become trustworthy?

stevecody: John McCain admitted economics isn't his thing. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," he said. But, "I've got Greenspan's book," he assured the audience.


He has a book. What more can we ask?

At least I don't have to wonder whether it is a coloring book
/at least I hope not

burndtdan

Bears repeating

That was hysterical.

Wait a tick. He wants to double the tax credit for kids? No, no, no ,no ,no ,no, no.

Maybe they should stop spending money first.

madmann: RobertBruce: good. pay for it by eliminating the following:
CFTC
EPA
FCC
SEC


and ummm.... a few others!

Like....
DEA
ATF
Homeland Security
FCC (yeah, I know you said that. Bears repeating.)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Dept of Education
TSA
FDA

burndtdan: an accompanying cut in federal expenditures

Yeah, right.

Unright: Umm.. When exactly did corporations become trustworthy?

They didn't and they aren't.

That's why we need to reduce regulatory agencies and shift the funding to the FBI, and others, for enforcement of statutory laws.

Regulations are not the same as laws, the agencies can assess fines but they have no mechanism to collect. This is the problem with regulatory agencies in general: Crooked companies can simply ignore the fines and wait until (if) the agency takes them to court and honest business is forced to waste a lot of money to comply.

The man is bey0ond reality now. He's talking about cutting taxes... IN A TIME OF WAR.

How stupid is it to do that?
Seriously. Before George W Bush, NOBODY EVER DID THAT.

EVER.

Reduce some farking spending first, THEN we can talk about more tax cuts for the rich.

Lionel Mandrake: robsul82: Is this the same John McCain who thought tax cuts during a time of war were "an affront to my conscience?"

No, that was the cool McCain, like the one who called fundy evangelicals "agents of intolerance."

The new McCain has no conscience about pandering to fools about taxes, or fellating batshiat fundies.

I would actually consider voting for cool McCain. New McCain can EaBoD.

RobertBruce: good. pay for it by eliminating the following:
...
SEC

I could not think of a worse economic idea if you gave me a million years to think about it.

/MBA

torch: madmann: RobertBruce: good. pay for it by eliminating the following:
CFTC
EPA
FCC
SEC


and ummm.... a few others!

Like....
DEA
ATF
Homeland Security
FCC (yeah, I know you said that. Bears repeating.)

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Dept of Education
TSA
FDA

You sir, are ignorant. I don't even know how to begin to respond to this.

FTA: ``The huge imbalance' in McCain's plan ``is that the tax cuts are specific and large and the spending cuts are small and vague,' said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Washington- based Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates budget restraint.

Unfortunately, the candidate with large and specific spending cuts wasn't Republican enough.

/a true Republican believes in senseless wars and unbalanced budgets.

Nestea Plunge: Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran will be paid for by soda cans picked up in the ditch next to the highway.

Sounds good to me, especially if it's Bush and Cheney in orange jump suits doing the ditch cleaning

and Hillary wants to extend America's protective umbrella over the entire middle east.

It's pretty clear Obama is the only sane choice.

Dilbert J. Galt: Unright: Umm.. When exactly did corporations become trustworthy?

They didn't and they aren't.

That's why we need to reduce regulatory agencies and shift the funding to the FBI, and others, for enforcement of statutory laws.

Regulations are not the same as laws, the agencies can assess fines but they have no mechanism to collect. This is the problem with regulatory agencies in general: Crooked companies can simply ignore the fines and wait until (if) the agency takes them to court and honest business is forced to waste a lot of money to comply.

McCain doesn't want to shift funds, he wants to ridiculously scale back funding. So if an agency like the SEC is eliminated, then there will be no funding shift to the FBI.

Plus, why would you eliminate a specialized agengy and let a generic one take over. Corporations would get away with much, much more malfeasance to the opint where they will get so rich they will buy out the government and begin sending disposale crews to out-lying planets to capture a Queen alien.

/ripple of evil...

burndtdan: also, how he plans to pass this through a democratic congress.

/details, details

It's called the coattails effect. Look it the fark up.

burndtdan: also, how he plans to pass this through a democratic congress.

/details, details

Lots of fiber? Maybe some prunes?

RobertBruce: good. pay for it by eliminating the following:
...
SEC

And then repeal Blue Sky laws at the state level! Rampant speculation for all!

The problem is never tax cuts, it's the lack of accompanying spending cuts.

With spending as it is, the country will go bankrupt with or without the tax cuts. It's just the difference of whether we're actually broke, or if our money has simply become completely worthless.

Churchill2004: The problem is never tax cuts, it's the lack of accompanying spending cuts.

No, the problem is thinking that tax cuts translate into economic growth.

Well, if we have to suffer through another disastrous Republican presidency, at least I better get some more farking money in my pocket.

hardinparamedic: torch: madmann: RobertBruce: good. pay for it by eliminating the following:
CFTC
EPA
FCC
SEC
and ummm.... a few others!
Like....
DEA
ATF
Homeland Security
FCC (yeah, I know you said that. Bears repeating.)
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Dept of Education
TSA
FDA

You sir, are ignorant. I don't even know how to begin to respond to this.

I'd say he's pretty dead-on.

Fair_Poopsmith: I'd say he's pretty dead-on.

Totally. And while we're at it, abolish state and local governments too. I, for one, look forward to a survival of the fittest Ayn Rand paradise.

We run a goverment on credit, we run a war on credit, and now we're doing more tax cuts on credit. I know paying it off isn't John McCain's problem but who will we keep borrowing it from?

The scariest part? People will go for this and think it's a great deal. Look at the voting public. They stuck us with The One Who Should Not Be Named for 8 years.

The fact that this news comes out on a late Friday afternoon is suspicious in itself.

Dilbert J. Galt: Regulations are not the same as laws, the agencies can assess fines but they have no mechanism to collect. This is the problem with regulatory agencies in general: Crooked companies can simply ignore the fines and wait until (if) the agency takes them to court and honest business is forced to waste a lot of money to comply.

Ummmmm, not quite true. Mega-corps can afford to stall, little guys cannot. And get nailed with fines if they don't comply.

My employer just paid 10.5 million to build a system to keep stuff that is in the water, out of the water once it hits land, but it is legal to put the same stuff on something and put it back in the water. Catch 22, but lots of folks are getting rich, just not the small guys.

RobertBruce: good. pay for it by eliminating the following:
SEC

Only if McCain offers to get rid of the ACC and the Big 12 while he's at it.

Unright: Plus, why would you eliminate a specialized agengy and let a generic one take over.

I was talking about regulatory agencies, not law enforcement.
SEC, ATF and DEA are law enforcement.


You're right about McCain just wanting to cut funding.

Hobodeluxe: and Hillary wants to extend America's protective umbrella over the entire middle east.

It's pretty clear Obama is the only sane choice.

I was wondering if anyone else was yelling at the screen during that. Israel isn't a great ally but let's face it, they're pretty much all we've got there. Pakistan's new progressive majority notwithstanding, not that they're actually our ally either but I don't see them as the blowing us up type. It's not like the Saudis are actually our friends. So who else are we protecting over there? If somebody bombs Iran do we go in and defend them? What if Iran bombs them back? And all this while refusing to talk to the leaders of any of those countries.

What could possibly go wrong?