Ruth Marcus is a reliably liberal columnist for the Washington Post, and her column this morning on candidate's "flip-flops" was quite readable. The inability to move off a bad position bespeaks a certain lack of judgment (see Senator McCain and ANWR, for instance). That said, Marcus chooses to hone in on Senator McCain's late term conversion to the Bush tax cuts and his recent statements designed to burnish his credentials as a fiscal conservative. The key graph is this one:
"Of all the flip-flops of campaign 2008, McCain's reversal on taxes may be the most disturbing, because it represents a stark turnabout on a key issue. But the important aspect is not that McCain changed his position -- it's that his "no new taxes" incarnation is so recklessly wrong."
What is it about this position that is so recklessly wrong? Is the federal government somehow lacking in resources? Is it Ms. Marcus' position that raising taxes is an effective way to kickstart the economy? Or is it simply a reflex action on the part of a liberal who feels that raising taxes is the first step to resolving whatever problem ails ya'.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I don't think McCain's position on the Bush tax cuts is inconsistent, or represents a "flip-flop" on the position of taxes. He has consistently maintained that he is not for raising taxes. The reason he's for keeping the Bush tax cuts permanent is because removing them is tantamount to imposing a tax.
There's plenty wrong with this guy, but this isn't one of them.
I hear what you are saying, but when the Bush Tax Cuts were proposed, McCain vocally derided them and voted against them. To now support extending them is tantamount to a flip-flop...an advisable one, but a flip-flop nonetheless.
Conservatives practice the economic theory of trickle down. Take care of the top money earners and maybe some of it will trickle down to middle and low income people. This theory has never worked. The theory of trickle up always works. Take care of low and middle income earners, they spend their money in the economy and everyone benefits. My long time experience is that economic conservatives are mean, greedy and only care about themselves.
Jonas, this is the second time I've read an entry of yours in which you point to your age or long-time experience. The length of time you've held onto your ideas means absolutely nothing here, only their logic and demonstrated validity. I don't know where to begin in taking apart this last entry, so I'll just wade in by suggesting to you that it wasn't the middle and low earners that brought us the economic boom we've seen largely since 1984 (minus the recessions of the early 90's and today's decline). It was enlightened tax and trade policies coupled with an explosion of productivity enabled by the internet age...a tool born, nurtured and grown by entrepreneurial visionaries seeking to do the one thing that really drives our economy...become rich. The collective economic power of the "low and middle" classes represents a largely static and unproductive portion of our economy. Necessary, but not the whole story.
Let's make a deal; if you cease classifying conservative ideas as "mean...greedy", I'll refrain from referring to liberal economic theory as loony, misguided, Marxist and bankrupt.
Post a Comment