Is McCain too old for the White House?

Hey, Tico the man, it's been like one year since you've posted here. You've derailed so many of my threads I've lost count.

Most of your comments were made during the Bush elections. Tico is one of the greatest Bush and Dick worshiper in the whole of the United States.

Furthermore, I do agree with you that Clinton is also very old. Therefore it leaves us with no other choice but Obama!

Zippo
I respectfully agree to disagree with your above words.
Your System is not yet matured to export with WMD.
I mean DEMOCARY is not a billion toilet paper show bussiness

My name is Rama Fuchs

Cheney and Obama are cousins. I read it on the Internet, so it must be true.

For those that believe in a Supeme Being, He has a way of giving one years to live, to fulfill one's purpose on Earth. Read the Old Testament. Many were quite old, but functioned better than the young.

Anyway, the President doesn't have to do algorithms in his head. He has to direct the course of this nation. If one has a good moral compass, that is not such a difficult job.

Don't discount the stress.

Can you post complete thoughts (Don't discount the stress to...)?

why not make a deal... eoe will post whole thoughts if you will make an attempt to understand what she was saying before whining and snipping?

Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles and Helen Keller could see what eoe was saying....context baby, read for context...

Better a wise old head than an empty young one.

The problem is, in my opinion, is that many people will end an incomplete thought with their own beliefs, so a different meaning is understood, than what the writer was intending. Not being a mind reader, I will not assume I can end people's thoughts.

It's interesting that you will term my post as, "whining and snipping." I will not take that as a compliment, but as a poor attempt at a snyde comment.

Also, don't compare me with Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles and Helen Keller. My brain functions very differently than theirs. Their lack of sight is a non-sequitor to my point.

Gotta admit. Foofie is very intelligent and knowledgeable about certain subjects. He has an excellent grasp of the English language and can express himself wisely. I have personally read some of his lengthy enlightening posts and now feel sorry for not giving him credit.

Credit goes where credit due.

(not that i agree with him all the time)

Agree.

I don't know what it is but I always seem to agree with au1929. Another great mind on AK2

Sorry Foofie. I figured anyone could fill in that blank.
What I meant was, don't discount the stress of being President of the United States. The Leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. That's alot of weight for a man his age to carry, IMO.

McCain is worse than Bush when it comes to shifting wealth to the wealthy.


March 24, 2008 by Faiz Shakir, Amanda Terkel, Satyam Khanna, Matt Corley, Ali Frick, and Benjamin Armbruster


ECONOMY
Worse Than Bush
In 2001, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) opposed the first round of President Bush's tax cuts, saying they were "generous tax relief to the wealthiest individuals of our country at the expense of lower- and middle-income American taxpayers." But now, as he runs for president, McCain openly mocks rhetoric that talks about "who the, quote, 'wealthy' are in America." In fact, McCain has offered massive tax cuts, mostly for corporations, that are as costly as Bush's tax cuts and even more regressive. In an analysis released last week, Center for American Progress Action Fund Senior Fellow Robert Gordon and Domestic Policy Adviser James Kvaal conclude that McCain's proposals are "enormously expensive," as they essentially double the Bush tax cuts. Additionally, "the McCain plan would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers" while shifting "the tax burden from investment income onto earned income." Not only would McCain ease the tax burden predominantly for the most wealthy, according to Gordon and Kvaal, but his plan "will lead to increased sheltering." Additionally, "McCain cannot pay for his tax cuts without massive reductions in Social Security, Medicare, or other key programs that benefit the vast majority of Americans." In essence, McCain has adopted the agenda of anti-tax ideologue Grover Norquist, who wants to make radical changes to the U.S. tax code "at the expense of lower- and middle-income Americans."

EMBRACED BY NORQUIST: Throughout McCain's time in the Senate, he has rarely been a favorite of Norquist's. In fact, just three years ago, Norquist referred to him as "the nut-job from Arizona." Pressed on the comment by the Washington Post, Norquist said he "misspoke" and that he "meant to say gun-grabbing, tax-increasing Bolshevik." Now, Norquist -- who famously said he wants the government "down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" -- calls McCain "very good on taxes" because he has embraced "the Americans for Tax Reform's entire agenda." Speaking to Newsweek last month, Norquist said that "on the tax issue," McCain "has moved very hard and far, and I believe convincingly." Explaining his recent embrace of McCain, Norquist told the Politico earlier this year that "successful movements accept prodigal sons when they return."

McCAIN BEGINS BACKING AWAY?: Speaking to the Washington Post last week, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain's senior policy adviser, responded to Gordon and Kvaal's criticism, conceding that they "had a point" on "the question of tax cuts." "It will make deficits expand up front, no question," admitted Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office. But Holtz-Eakin defended the central points of McCain's plan, claiming that "helping corporations ultimately helps workers because it ensures their employer remains internationally competitive." "That place has to be economically viable, otherwise they have a problem," said Hotz-Eakin. Moreover, though he conceded to Gordon and Kvaal on tax cuts, Holtz-Eakin's Washington Post op-ed today about McCain's plan for "turning around the economy" never mentions the massive corporate tax cuts that McCain billed barely two months ago as the first item in his "economic stimulus plan."

QUESTIONS FOR McCAIN: Responding to Holtz-Eakin on the Center for American Progress Action Fund's Wonk Room blog, Gordon and Kvaal note that Holtz-Eakin's "signal that Senator McCain may change his economic agenda yet again" raises four questions: 1) Why is it necessary to cuts taxes for corporations to make them "economically viable" when the United States already has the fourth-lowest corporate tax revenue as a share of the economy in the industrialized world? 2) Why are deficit-financed corporate tax cuts likely to increase growth when (a) in the short-run, Moody's Economy.com ranked them the least cost-effective stimulus among 13 options, and (b) in the medium or longer-run, the effect on growth of deficit-financed tax cuts "tends to be small?" 3) How do massive tax cuts for the most fortunate further shared prosperity when income inequality is at its highest level since before the Great Depression (or earlier)? 4) Given the admission that this plan will immediately increase federal budget deficits, how will McCain meet his own goal of balancing the budget by 2012?

--americanprogressaction.com

Zippo

You must be hallucinating. I almost never agree with you

Zippo
"isw not life a 100 times too short for us
to bore ourselves?"--- Friedrich Nietsche