Remember that infamous broken promise that, presumably, led to the defeat of George W. Bush in his bid to be re-elected President in 1992? "Read my lips. No new taxes."
Now, Senator John McCain (AKA George Bush Jr. Jr.) has made, and broken, exactly the same kind of pledge.
At a town-hall meeting in Denver on July 7th McCain said voters faced a clear choice between him and Democrat Barack Obama.
"Sen. Obama will raise your taxes," McCain said. "I won't."
In an interview on March 16th with Sean Hannity of Fox News, McCain indicated he would cut taxes whenever possible, and not raise them.
"Do you mean none?" Hannity asked.
"None," McCain answered.
But now-last Sunday, in response to a question from George Stephanopolis on ABC's "This Week" program-McCain suddenly reversed course on his promise. In discussing possible actions he might take a President to make the Social Security system solvent he repeatedly responded that "nothing is off the table". That would include increases in Social Security withholding taxes.
So. What do you, Mr./Ms. Voter think about that?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 22
Besides When 41 (which is how his wife Barbara refers to him now) said read my lips....(i really don't read lips) ...no new taxes, my husband and I worked longer hours, for less money, and paid out more in taxes than we ever had and went from the traditional 300-600 dollar refund to owing over 600 dollars and all with a new baby to take care of.
And if something happens to the tax code, it won't be because a President made it happen.
A tax is the government's taking of your money without your consent, in order to pay for programs it has decided serve the public interest. (Perhaps you volunteered to contribute to the Social Security Trust Fund. If so, I applaud you. Most of the rest of us have been given no choice in the matter.)
And if you believe, wrongly, that you are purchasing some kind of "insurance" with that money the federal government withholds from your paycheck every payday, think again. The so-called "trust fund" is more illusory than real. There is absolutely NO assurance that you will ever receive the benefits you have been "promised". Those so-called benefits are subject to change--and have changed over time.
Finally, I'm quite sure George Bush the elder will be consoled by the fact that he was unjustly blamed for raising taxes--and being tossed out of the Oval office as result--when he had nothing to do with it.
Huh? Are you suggesting that he never signed that budget into law? I'd like to see your documents to back that up, please.
"A tax is the government's taking of your money without your consent,"
This isn't entirely factual. At SOME point, those who represent us have created tax levies to fund specific programs that we, collectively, are in favor of. The vast majority of the country is strongly in favor of SS, and has been since its inception.
"There is absolutely NO assurance that you will ever receive the benefits you have been "promised"."
This is utter nonsense. What you are inferring with this reckless, baseless statement is that the federal government is insolvent, or is not to be considered credit worthy enough to remain solvent.
While it is absolutely true that republicans have been stealing from this fund in order to offset the massive cost of their enormous debt burdens each year, to make the assumptive statement that anyone who is currently paying in is going to be screwed in the end is simply not a factually based statement. It's purely partisan rhetoric.
"Those so-called benefits are subject to change--and have changed over time. "
Please, elaborate on this. I'd like to know what specific changes have occured since 1934, that have reduced benefits, since that is clearly what you're inferring here.
2nd: I'm sure you will find, if you look under enough rocks, more than a few people who object to having their pockets picked every payday for the purpose of supporting all those old codgers who can't or won't earn their own way--reasonable or not.
3rd: Despite what you might prefer to believe, there are NO guarantees that the Social Security Trust Fund will be able to deliver the benefits that have been implicitly promised to everyone who has, or is, contributing to it, especially after the Baby Boom tsunami hits.
The solvency of the federal government as a whole is not germaine. At some point in time some hard choices are going to have to be made, and priorities readjusted. More money--a lot more--is going to have to be found somewhere. That may mean cutting back on defense spending, RAISING TAXES, starting up a national lottery, or having a really big bake sale. The only other alternative is reducing the benefit substantially.
4th: I'm "inferring" nothing. Neither, more properly, am I implying anything. Do some research. You will find, for instance, unless I am badly mistaken, that the age at which full benefits are paid has been extended from 62 to 65 years. That constitutes a change.
McCain's statement that "everything is on the table", re: Social Security, implies that he is open to the full range of options where the program is concerned, including, further extending the age at which full benefits are paid, reducing the dollar value of said benefits, increasing the witholding rates for Social Security payroll TAXES, and God, and John, only know what else.
For some reason, I couldn't hear the tone in your voice. Pardon.
"2nd: I'm sure you will find, if you look under enough rocks, more than a few people who object to having their pockets picked every payday for the purpose of supporting all those old codgers who can't or won't earn their own way--reasonable or not."
So what? There are a lot of people that want drugs legalized, prostitution legalized, and the complete dismemberment of the entire military industrial complex, but in a pseudo-democratic society, and particularly in a federal republic, majority rules.
"3rd: Despite what you might prefer to believe, there are NO guarantees that the Social Security Trust Fund will be able to deliver the benefits that have been implicitly promised to everyone who has, or is, contributing to it, especially after the Baby Boom tsunami hits.
"
You're simply mistaken on this. The ONLY way that the obligations will not be met is if the entire government collapses. They are guaranteed in US treasury notes.
As for the solvency of the program itself, it could be made entirely solvent for as far as the eye can see merely by increasing the wage cap on the payroll tax.
"4th: I'm "inferring" nothing. Neither, more properly, am I implying anything. "
tomato/tomahto.
im·ply Audio Help /?m?pla?/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-plahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -plied, -ply·ing. 1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.
2. (of words) to signify or mean.
3. to involve as a necessary circumstance: Speech implies a speaker.
4. Obsolete. to enfold.
in·fer Audio Help /?n?f?r/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-fur] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -ferred, -fer·ring.
–verb (used with object) 1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.
–verb (used without object) 5. to draw a conclusion, as by reasoning.
The age has been lowered and raised. Payouts, however, have not been reduced, which was exactly what I'd said.
"McCain's statement that "everything is on the table", "
McCain is a rather old, very confused fool, who has openly admitted knowing next to nothing about economics. He's the LAST person on the planet I'd come to for suggestions on SS, frankly.
All that needs to be done in order to "save SS" is to raise the wage limit from $90k to $250k. Problem solved, for as far as the eye could see.
The REAL issue lying ahead of us exists with medicare, not SS.
Take a hike you jive-ass jerk.
All I can say about that is, I hope he likes sloppy seconds.
I think they will both say anything to get elected... and I KNOW that taxes will be raised much higher by Obama. Therefore, I will vote for McCain.
1. Social Security benefits were not originally taxed. Now they are.
2. They raised the age limit on when you can begin getting benefits (effectively decreasing your benefit).
You are badly mistaken. 67 is the 'full' retirement age. Anything prior to that and they deduct a percentage from the full retirement.