LUCILLE: The Straight To Hell Express

While Obama and Clinton duke it out in an amazingly democratic (small d) nomination race, let's take a look on the other side of the aisle and start to consider what kind of President John McCain would make.

And just to show you that I can talk beyond Iraq (since that's a subject on which McCain will no doubt falter), I'm going to focus on the economy and how Johnny Mack's plan for the US will reverberate if we're unlucky enough for him to get elected this fall.

Keep in mind, this is the man who admitted he knows very little about he economy - so, hey, let's put him in charge. My guess is he'll do a heck of a job. . .  just like Brownie.

First and foremost, let's look at what he wants to do about taxes. Was there ever an easier way to pander? Promise tax cuts - and make it sound like everyone gets them - and everyone loves you. Only one thing: he's not saying how we're going to pay for running the country once he puts us into debt that will make your head spin.

First, he wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. What does that mean? Well, George Bush played a little trick on us; he pushed through some huge tax cuts for his rich friends (the Paris Hilton tax cut), but just to make us think they wouldn't really cost us that much, he made them expire in 2010 so they looked like they really weren't such a drag on our economy. So, if John McCain extends those cuts - makes them permanent - in just 10 years it will cost us TRILLIONS in revenues.

Then he wants to eliminate the alternative minimum tax. Not necessarily a bad idea on it's own. . . but then he wants to sharply reduce tax rates on corporate profits. Of course! Those poor corporations - making record profits - are entitled to a tax cut at your expense. You know, Shell Oil and Halliburton have really been struggling during the Bush Administration. They need a break. And Johnny boy wants to give it to them.

So, that's John's first task: run up another $5 trillion in debt.

How will he pay for these cuts? Well, by golly, he'll cut waste. (Where have we heard that before?) Only thing is, all the waste and earmarks he keeps talking about and pointing to don't add up to nearly the amount he's promising to cut.

So, I guess he's right. He doesn't know anything about the economy.

Comments

[Clarisse]

I'm scared as hell by the thought of McLame getting into the white house. What is wrong with the people in this country? Are all republicans so ignorant to think this is the way? Haven't they learned their lesson with George W? O.M.G.
Come on America...wake up---at the end of the McLame's term, we'll be named "Little China". Hell, they own us already!

[Eric]

Let me first say that anyone who has already decided to vote Democratic probably already understands that a McCain presidency means more war, more deficit spending, more supply-side economics, and more corruption. So really we're only targeting about half of the people. We can break that group of people into a number of sub-groups: Those wanting to vote democratic but are turned off by this ridiculous clinton-obama mess, those that think that McCain is "fiscally responsible" (whatever the hell that means), those that are ridiculously religious and completely closed-minded to anything outside of the abortion issue, and those authoritarian conservatives that think the ends justify the means no matter what.

So, really, our target audience is quite small. The only people that have any chance of making a lucid decision are the "fiscally responsible" ones and the democratically turned-off ones. The rest are long gone.

Lucille, I think you did a good job summarizing McCain's false fiscal-responsibility. It's complete hogwash that he could be considered anything resembling a fiscal conservative. I laugh (and then cry) when someone claims that they "like what McCain does with their money." I mean, if money is your only issue to start, then you're already a miserable shell of a person. But suggesting that he would do good for the economy is a completely ignorant statement. First of all, knowing that he knows nothing of economics means that he will give complete control to his advisers to decide his economic policy. Following the Bush-Cheney precedent, that means he'll basically hand it off to the industry itself to decide his policy (which always means bad for consumers). Hey, great, let's put a little more pressure on that pillow we're holding over the face of the middle class.

Despite my feelings on McCain economics, I have maintained from the beginning that there is only one issue for this election and that's the Supreme Court. The moderates and liberals are already severely underrepresented on the Supreme Court. If McCain is allowed to get into the White House and choose more extreme right-wing Scalia-clones then this country is doomed for the foreseeable future. It's that simple. Forget about this Reverend Wright nonsense. Forget about this "McCain war hero" bullshit. It means nothing.

I can't believe people have fallen for the media spin yet AGAIN. So stupid.

[Maxi]

I would like to comment on the McCain "war hero" story. You know, the story that he gave up a chance for special treatment(because he was an officer's son or something). Just exactly who did this story come from? And who exactly is confirming this story?

Yes, it's terrible that he was a POW but that doesn't make him a hero. He sacrificed, he went to war. Well, so did thousands of other people in this country, so any one of them has just as many "credentials" as him. Besides, there are many other POWs who can't stand McCain and say he DID get special privileges when he was there. Some even say he sold them out.

So, hero? Sorry. Someone's own story doesn't prove anything. Especially someone who seems willing to say anything to become President.

[John Moriarty]

Lucille says: "he made them expire in 2010 so they looked like they really weren't such a drag on our economy. So, if John McCain extends those cuts - makes them permanent - in just 10 years it will cost us TRILLIONS in revenues."

So let me get this straight, the trillions of dollars the government takes from the working people of this country aren't enough, that liberals need to worry about the revenues of the Federal Government??? Government is not the answer to every problem in this country. The more governement there is in our lives the less free we are. Let's see the government do a better job with the money they have.

Secondly, since when have lower taxes ever been a "drain on the economy"? Show us one shred of proof that that is true. In fact the opposite is true. Lucille, what is one of the first things done to stimulate an economy? Cut or raise taxes?

Unfortunately, your hyperbole (very common from liberals, by the way) discredits the rest of your piece.

[Lucille]

LUCILLE REPLIES:
John. the revenues this government gets are from taxes primarily so, yes, cutting the millionaire tax rate decreases the revenues we bring in to pay for everything from infrastructure (which McCain would seriously cut with his "gas tax holiday") to the military to subsidies for oil companies.

Anyone who has balanced a check book or their personal finances knows that if you don't bring in enough revenue (salary:taxes) to cover your expenses, it's a drag on your personal economy, because you can't do the things you need to do, like repair your house (infrastructure), buy medicine (healthcare) or give your kids an allowance (subsidies). Simple economics. Not hyperbole.
And if cutting taxes is so great at stimulating our economy. . . why is it in such sad shape? Or is it Clinton's fault, like everything else that's gone wrong in the Bush years?

[Eric]

"Government is not the answer to every problem in this country."

Of course not. But we're not talking about every problem. We're talking about tax cuts. No one said the solution is more government either. You don't make any sense.

"Show us one shred of proof that that is true. In fact the opposite is true. Lucille, what is one of the first things done to stimulate an economy? Cut or raise taxes?"

John, do you realize that you just demanded proof from Lucille and then immediately after made a claim without any proof yourself?

I find it funny that the trickle-down people always issue an "economic stimulus" from the bottom up when the economy tanks. Hmm, maybe if we just worked bottom-up from the start we wouldn't need economic stimulus.

Wealthy individuals and businesses, the people that enjoy the most luxury and utilize the most infrastructure, should rightfully pay the most taxes. So when you cut taxes on this group, you shift the burden to the middle class to support. This money doesn't trickle down in cost savings to the consumer either. It jolts up to multi-million dollar bonuses to CEOs and massive salary increases. Look at the figures. Under the Bush tax cuts, wages have remained stagnant while CEOs have enjoyed record earnings. On top of that productivity is up. The gap between productivity and wages translates to more revenue for CEOs.

The CATO Institute issued a report stating that tax cuts do not increase revenue as you suggest. The reason behind this is that government services work as any other commodity. When taxes are cut, the perceived cost of those services goes down, but the actual cost is constant. So people use these services more. Cost goes up. Revenues go down. Tax cuts do not work without decreasing the size of government. Under Bush, taxes have been cut and government has been aggressively expanded -- Homeland Security, Faith Based Initiatives and a new intelligence agency are but a few of the large agencies added to our bloated government. So much for that conservative principle of less government...

Again, John, you are so dead wrong. You just keep echoing these debunked conservative talking points to the point of ridiculousness.

[sassy]

My fellow Americana's,my fellow Democrates!!
we need to do the right thing,we need to do what we wished the republicans would have done 4 years ago. we need to make sure with our votes that a bad,bad horrid man does not take the highest office in our land.
8 years ago the republicans voted for bush and we democrates were very sad,than 4 years ago we figured no way would we let that happen again,but alas bush won again. 8 years of pure hell for all to share.
but this time its not the republicans that have the horrible candidate! its us the democrates that have the horrid man that will destroy America.its is us the democrates that must do the right thing and vote for the best person running and that man is McCain.
the dnc has done everything it can to make sure we have no choice of a president.
we have never been huge Hillary supporters but she is better than obama,we would vote for her,barack we will never vote for.
do we like john McCain??? no not really!!!
do we respect john McCain??? yes we do!! he is a good man.
do we want john McCain as president?? no,but he is better than obama!!!
we are a small group of democrates called keepers that just do not think barack obama cares about our united states of America.
we keepers will vote in this election and if our choice is barack obama or john McCain,we will have no choice but to vote for john McCain.
barack obama will destory and divide our United States of America!!! We the people must stand united and stop him or divided we fall!!!

[Eric]

Sassy, all I can say to that is "wow." Based on your grammar and spelling alone, it's hard to take you seriously. But if we ignore that and focus on the actual content of your comment, all I can get is that you think McCain is great. But you site no specific examples or even anecdotal reasons why you think so.

And yet you say that George Bush was a bad choice. McCain is just as bad, if not worse than George W Bush. McCain supports, without question, everything that George Bush stands for. He has sold out his principles (at least those he had in 2000) and allied himself with the extremist, authoritarian Christian right wing. That alone is enough for me to discount him from ever getting my vote. Throw in his horrible economic policies and desire to make war and I can't see any reason why someone would vote for him.

Obama at least espouses a progressive agenda -- commenting about making the oil companies put their record profits toward sustainable energy for example. I disagree with him on the aggressiveness of his campaign, but he is nonetheless the best choice we have for the future.