McCain: No new taxes, no incresing taxes, cut spending!

[Pooks]

McCain said the $35 billion worth of spending on special projects that Bush signed into law in the last two years amounts to a $1,000 tax credit for every child in America, and would have been better for the economy if spent that way.

PERSONAL NOTE: althought I'd like to see TAX REBATES going to all TAXPAYERS, those SINGLE.. and those with kidz.. not just those with kidz.. at least it is a sign towards reducing taxes... much better than what Democrats suggest MORE TAXES RIPOFF.



WASHINGTON - Republican John McCain says there will be no new taxes during his administration if he is elected president.


"No new taxes," the likely GOP presidential nominee said during a taped interview broadcast Sunday.

McCain told ABC's "This Week" that under no circumstances would he increase taxes, and added that he could "see an argument, if our economy continues to deteriorate, for lower interest rates, lower tax rates, and certainly decreasing corporate tax rates," as well as giving people the ability to write off depreciation and eliminating the alternative minimum tax.

McCain was defending his support for an extension of tax cuts sought by President Bush, which McCain voted against. The Arizona senator now says allowing the tax breaks to expire would amount to an unacceptable tax increase.

Later Sunday, the Democratic Party criticized John McCain's statements on continuing the tax cuts, saying his policies would not differ from the past eight years under the Bush administration.

"John McCain showed today that he is about as far from a maverick as they come," said Karen Finney, spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee.

McCain's "no new taxes" statement marked a turnaround. Last September, he was forced to defend his refusal to sign a no-new tax pledge offered by the conservative Americans for Tax Reform.

"I stand on my record," he said during a televised debate in Durham, N.H. "I don't have to sign pledges."

The leading contender for his party's presidential nomination, McCain blamed out-of-control spending for a lack of enthusiasm among Republican voters.

"Spending restraint is why our base is not energized," he said. "I think it's very important that we send a signal to the American people we're going to stop the earmark pork-barrel spending."

McCain said the $35 billion worth of spending on special projects that Bush signed into law in the last two years amounts to a $1,000 tax credit for every child in America, and would have been better for the economy if spent that way.

McCain also said he was open to the idea of helping homeowners facing foreclosure, provided they were "legitimate borrowers" and not "engaged in speculation."

[kfrost06]

Personally, I don't believe anything a politician says during a campaign. All rhetoric to get votes and this is true of both sides.

[Prada]

Interesting but Id like to hear what and where exactly he plans on cutting

[alphaman]

I like what he's saying, but I have a hard time believing him with the amount of wishiwashiness he's displayed in his career.

[Pooks]

Interesting but Id like to hear what and where exactly he plans on cutting

hopefully across the board 20%.. all budgets are way overblown.

Thats how arnold is doing it in california I believe.. all across the board percentage cuts.

[Logan13]

Interesting but Id like to hear what and where exactly he plans on cutting

entitlements would be a good start. If current programs are kept in place, by 2011 entitlements will make up over 70% of our annual budget(this includes social security, medicare, and medicaid).

[thegodfather]

entitlements would be a good start. If current programs are kept in place, by 2011 entitlements will make up over 70% of our annual budget(this includes social security, medicare, and medicaid).

Agreed...I think we could start bumping a lot of people off entitlements like Wellfare, HUD, and Medicaid if we start drug testing them, and making the 1st offense loss of entitlements for life.



"""Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their A$$, doing drugs, while I work. . .

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though something has to change in this country -- and soon! """

[Pooks]

I disagree on drug testing with you.

I believe that would be a violation of our privacy rights and has nothing to do with national security.

Just slash entitlements 20% across the board, like Arnold wants to do in California.

the gov't does not need to weasel itself out of entitlements by doing drug tests.

[Prada]

entitlements would be a good start. If current programs are kept in place, by 2011 entitlements will make up over 70% of our annual budget(this includes social security, medicare, and medicaid).

Well that would be much more fiscally responsible and having a balanced budget.