You're wasting time trying to figure out what McCain meant -- HE doesn't even know!!

Just one more flip flop on the part of a candidate, who doesn't appear to know the difference between his butt and a hole in the ground. McSame has become such an outrageous caricature of the man he once was that I feel somewhat sorry for him. It's a terrible thing to watch someone waste away with the horrible affliction known as senile dementia.

Hey, McCain. How have those tax cuts been working for you? Exxon posting RECORD profits last quarter (again), $600 billion deficiet (have to includ the cost of your little war), going on $10 trillion national debt and middle american deteriotating into minimum wage dead end jobs. Wow. What a plan. Give me a break. McCain and his buddy Bush equal disaster.

Of course when McCain changes his mind people decide not to view it as a flip flop

Oh well. Congratulations Exxon on your record profits

Grrrrr

Shouldn't McCain denounce McCain on this one?

McCain is trying to be on both sides of the tax issue, but that's just one of several flip flops.

The more confusing thing for us voters to understand is why he wants to raise taxes to save a program - Social Security - he calls a disgrace.

Maybe when the reporters quit protecting McCain from himself, they'll actually follow up on some of these statements. Does McCain intend to scrap Social Security? Reform it - though the part he doesn't like is and has been central to its funding since its inception, so not sure how he'd change that. What is his position here?

The Social Security aspect is far more intriguing to me than the tax aspect. It used to be called the third rail, as in you touch it and you do a painful, electricity laden death. But with press protection, McCain can firmly place both feet on that third rail, pee and no one seems to even notice he's there so no one flips the switch on.

I guess the media will just chalk it up to McCain being McCain.

Will - how do you think those Gallup numbers would look if older voters knew McCain wanted to scrap Social Security?

As Americans its time we all stood up and said No More, Social Security has been used by the Government as a free for all savings account that they could dip into when they wanted ot or felt the money could do more elsewhere, Its time we stood up and said they have to pay it back, make them pay back every cent out of their salaries, their pet projects(pork barrel spending), even selling off property, what ever it takes to pay back what was taken without the consent of the taxpayers who had or are paying in.

Tim - I agree with your point, but disagree its 5-10 percent. A few points though.

I also think Obama could get another point or two from the folks who don't have landlines in their homes.

Who’s better for the US economy McCain or Obama?

Some background

Corporate Taxes: In resent years the statutory tax rate for our highest earning corporations has been 35-37%. That places us as the country with the second highest rate globally; a couple percentage points behind Japan. What is often not mentioned is that the effective tax rate, the rate our corporations actually pay (the tax rate minus the incentives and tax loopholes that allow companies to reduce their tax burden) has been between 17.2% and 21.4% as reported by Robert McIntyre and T.D. Coo Nguyen in the “Multinational Monitor”, Vol. 25, No. 11. That puts us in the middle of the pack worldwide—most other countries just don’t have the number of loopholes we do.

Household Taxes: Since 1970 the top tax bracket has dropped from 71.75% to the current value of 35% (there was an increase from 31% to 39.6% in 1993 after which the downward tread resumed). During that same period the bottom bracket started at 14%, settled in at 15% from the late 80s through 2001 and then fell to its current level of %10. These are IRS and Congressional Budget Office numbers.

A Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report by Aviva Aron-Done tracked the effective tax rate for both our highest wage earners and the middle quintile. The report showed that the highest earner’s rate dropped dramatically during the 80s and then again in the late 90’s while the middle quintile stayed relatively flat.

Income: The period starting with the end of WWII and extending to 1970 marked a time of great economic growth and economic parity. Since 1970 the incomes of those at the very top of the economic ladder and everyone else have dramatically diverged. These facts are not in dispute. Janet L. Yellen (President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco), pointed out that between 1973 and 2005 the highest 5% wage earners increased their earning at a rate almost 7 times that of the lowest 10% of earners.

The US Census Bureau charted the median annual family incomes for the six economic expansion periods between 1960 and 2007. The only period where the median income was flat was between 2000 and 2007—the reason, only those in the top 25% income bracket experienced growth, everyone else either stayed where they were or lost income.

Professor Larry Martles (“Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age”) makes two important points in a recent New York Times article; first, “…80 percent of net income gains since 1980 went to people in the top 1 percent of the income distribution…” and second, “…the real incomes of working-poor families (at the lowest 20th percentile of the income distribution) grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House…”

Supply Side vs. Trickle Down: Supply Side Economics is driven by two ideas. First, encouraging new businesses also encourages the growth of backend logistic support for those businesses thereby doubly job creation. Second, across the board tax reductions will both encourage new businesses plus grow the market for those businesses. What is understood by “honest” economists is that the tax reductions needed to produce this scenario will not be fully paid for by increased tax revenues from the new businesses—Supply Side Economics requires long-term deficit spending.

What has actually been practiced since the 1980s is Trickle Down Economics. David Stockman, Ronal Reagan’s budget director, has admitted that the Reagan administration used the term Supply Side while they were really practicing Trickle Down. In Trickle Down Economics only one side of the equation is worked. Tax reductions are given only to the wealthy to encourage business growth. One flaw with this approach is that it is an extremely inefficient approach to economic growth. Giving those already wealthy more money doesn’t assure they’ll send it like we would wish—they might invest and spend some in this country, they might invest and spend overseas or more probably some combination of the two. Giving those in need money does guarantee growth in local markets—current headlines attesting to the economic benefits of the resent tax rebates prove this point.

Conclusion: This country’s long term economic health will only be realized if we have a large and vibrant middle class. Re-building that middle class will require closing the economic divide between the very wealthy and the rest of us—moving people out of poverty. Republican administrations have proven they are not up to this task. McCain’s insistence on keeping in place Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy will only hurt our economy.

Yeah "Reef" just called They have his signiture flipflops ready, They will be on the market in a week, But wait there's more buy a pair know and get a 10 dollar gasoline voucher. How can anyone defend this guy, I mean last senate vote he fell asleep during the procedings, Now if you fell asleep at work at Taco Bell would you have a job tommorrow? Yeah know he is old and tired, But that is the point he can't even stay awake while doing his job in the Senate, how can we count on him to stay awake doing the job of President. He could run for president of the Old folks home.

"read my lips . . . no new taxes"

yet another republican

I have a great idea to save social security. Don't let these greedy jerks in Washington be able to take the money out to pay for some lousy pork project. Take it out of the general fund and make it untouchable except for the people who have actually contributed to it all their working lives. It would be solven in a very short time. The fed could just print more money as they usually do to make up for the shortage.

I have a great idea to save social security. Don't let these greedy jerks in Washington be able to take the money out to pay for some lousy pork project. Take it out of the general fund and make it untouchable except for the people who have actually contributed to it all their working lives. It would be solven in a very short time. The fed could just print more money as they usually do to make up for the shortage.

He sounds like bush-3 to me. Hasn't this country suffered enough under the bush policies?

Just watch...as President, McCain will screw Social Security 7 ways to Sunday. You'll pay more in SS taxes, you'll pay more for medicare taxes, and he'll shove his 5000 bucks tax credit have people buy health insurance that won't cover anything but a few doctor bills. Wind up in the hospital and you'll be on the charity ward. If he has his way...Social Security will be given to the privates insurance industry, and so will Medicare. You think health care stinks now, with him you can take the care out of this and replace it with health capital. Those that have "capital" will have insurance. Those that don't...thats their problem. Tell McCain to offer all Americans the same health insurance coverage he has, not junk.

People are such idiots. There will be a tax increase in the next admin. Whether it is in the form of a repeal of the GWB stupid tax cuts or new taxes in the form of something else. There will be a tax increase. You cannot run a deficit like we are running now and don't expect the government to raise funds. So, McCain like an idiot took the silly bait after he did the right thing and say that all opitions are on the table. Yes, this is politics as usually on both sides...again which side is going to make your life a little bit easier. That's what you should think about and not empty sound bites from either candidates. Oh I forgot people have no idea of being objective.

hello idiots, with Obama letting Bush's tax cuts expire anyone who makes over $50,000 a year will be paying $2000 extra every year in taxes. Why do you people want to pay more taxes? CUT SPENDING!!! If McCain has to raise taxes, what do you think Obama's healthcare program is going to do?

Grampa is having memory loss, and is flip-flopping.